Yep. The rotation was set once he returned from injury and he wanted to preserve his eligbility for next season at a different school.

— Grayson Grundhoefer (@GrayGrundhoefer) November 11, 2024

I don't believe he has any eligibility left unless there is some kind of special case option still available.

Seems likely he is wanting to focus on staying healthy and trying to get on nfl draft radar, hit the pro days and workouts running and hope to get a shot somewhere.

Wished he had made that decision before the leap into end zone in Boulder.

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

Won't those high school recruits just be 1-2 year mercenaries as well?

Jorkel said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

Won't those high school recruits just be 1-2 year mercenaries as well?

---

Speaking of Baylor specifically, it hasn't really worked that way. Under Aranda, retention hasn't really been a problem. Development has.

Some guys will transfer out for more playing time, etc., but statistics show guys are generally more loyal to their first program than subsequent programs.

I think most high school recruits choose a program with the intention of finishing their careers at that school. So fit and other non-football factors carry more weight in that process. I think most transfers are just looking for a short-term home to showcase their talents.

I had high hopes for him when he first transferred here. Too bad it didn't work out better for both sides.

I don't blame him for transferring in this situation.

boognish_bear said:

---

I had high hopes for him when he first transferred here. Too bad it didn't work out better for both sides.

I don't blame him for transferring in this situation.

---

He's at best the third-best back in our rotation. Pendergrass basically assumed his role and did it better while he was out.

We're in really good shape at running back with Washington and Pendergrass. That's a really solid 1-2 punch.

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

I agree. The problem is that there's no guarantee that the guys you developed will stay. It's crazy that SMU was given the death penalty for what every school has to do now to survive.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

I agree. The problem is that there's no guarantee that the guys you developed will stay. It's crazy that SMU was given the death penalty for what every school has to do now to survive.

---

There are no guarantees, period, in modern college football. But most college players who are playing a lot and being taken care of monetarily don't transfer from power conference schools.

The bulk of transfers are still guys who either aren't playing as much or making as much as they want or G5 stars looking to rise the ranks.

I feel pretty confident in our ability to keep the bulk of our core together.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

I agree. The problem is that there's no guarantee that the guys you developed will stay. It's crazy that SMU was given the death penalty for what every school has to do now to survive.

---

There are no guarantees, period, in modern college football. But most college players who are playing a lot and being taken care of monetarily don't transfer from power conference schools.

The bulk of transfers are still guys who either aren't playing as much or making as much as they want or G5 stars looking to rise the ranks.

I feel pretty confident in our ability to keep the bulk of our core together.

---

Agree on the guys that are playing. It's the promising back ups that concern me. Gonna be tough to have depth (and next year's starters) unless we're paying our back ups market rates too.

Richard Reese next ?

Dia del DougO said:

---

I don't believe he has any eligibility left unless there is some kind of special case option still available.

Seems likely he is wanting to focus on staying healthy and trying to get on nfl draft radar, hit the pro days and workouts running and hope to get a shot somewhere.

---

he has only played in 4 games so he can still redshift as 4 is the limit

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

I agree. The problem is that there's no guarantee that the guys you developed will stay. It's crazy that SMU was given the death penalty for what every school has to do now to survive.

---

There are no guarantees, period, in modern college football. But most college players who are playing a lot and being taken care of monetarily don't transfer from power conference schools.

The bulk of transfers are still guys who either aren't playing as much or making as much as they want or G5 stars looking to rise the ranks.

I feel pretty confident in our ability to keep the bulk of our core together.

---

Agree on the guys that are playing. It's the promising back ups that concern me. Gonna be tough to have depth (and next year's starters) unless we're paying our back ups market rates too.

---

Agreed. Acquiring and maintaining depth is a challenge everyone faces now. I think that's the biggest driver of the parity we're seeing this year -- the lack of continuity and quality depth behind teams' starters.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

I agree. The problem is that there's no guarantee that the guys you developed will stay. It's crazy that SMU was given the death penalty for what every school has to do now to survive.

---

There are no guarantees, period, in modern college football. But most college players who are playing a lot and being taken care of monetarily don't transfer from power conference schools.

The bulk of transfers are still guys who either aren't playing as much or making as much as they want or G5 stars looking to rise the ranks.

I feel pretty confident in our ability to keep the bulk of our core together.

---

Agree on the guys that are playing. It's the promising back ups that concern me. Gonna be tough to have depth (and next year's starters) unless we're paying our back ups market rates too.

---

This is probably the difference that may show up between conferences. The blue bloods and their kin have the deeper pockets that can pay both the marquee players that start AND the backups that don't get on the field that much. Everybody else is having to use all their money just to satisfy the starters with not enough left over for the depth chart. At least that would seem to be a plausible situation.

Wacoraisedbear said:

---

Richard Reese next ?

---

He's been hurt apparently, but I could see it happening if he really wants playing time and doesn't mind moving to G5.

blackie said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

I agree. The problem is that there's no guarantee that the guys you developed will stay. It's crazy that SMU was given the death penalty for what every school has to do now to survive.

---

There are no guarantees, period, in modern college football. But most college players who are playing a lot and being taken care of monetarily don't transfer from power conference schools.

The bulk of transfers are still guys who either aren't playing as much or making as much as they want or G5 stars looking to rise the ranks.

I feel pretty confident in our ability to keep the bulk of our core together.

---

Agree on the guys that are playing. It's the promising back ups that concern me. Gonna be tough to have depth (and next year's starters) unless we're paying our back ups market rates too.

---

This is probably the difference that may show up between conferences. The blue bloods and their kin have the deeper pockets that can pay both the marquee players that start AND the backups that don't get on the field that much. Everybody else is having to use all their money just to satisfy the starters with not enough left over for the depth chart. At least that would seem to be a plausible situation.

---

Except good players don't want to be depth -- even for historical powers. The blue bloods are losing their backups to programs that can promise them starting jobs. That's why the gap has narrowed so dramatically.

bear2be2 said:

---

blackie said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

I agree. The problem is that there's no guarantee that the guys you developed will stay. It's crazy that SMU was given the death penalty for what every school has to do now to survive.

---

There are no guarantees, period, in modern college football. But most college players who are playing a lot and being taken care of monetarily don't transfer from power conference schools.

The bulk of transfers are still guys who either aren't playing as much or making as much as they want or G5 stars looking to rise the ranks.

I feel pretty confident in our ability to keep the bulk of our core together.

---

Agree on the guys that are playing. It's the promising back ups that concern me. Gonna be tough to have depth (and next year's starters) unless we're paying our back ups market rates too.

---

This is probably the difference that may show up between conferences. The blue bloods and their kin have the deeper pockets that can pay both the marquee players that start AND the backups that don't get on the field that much. Everybody else is having to use all their money just to satisfy the starters with not enough left over for the depth chart. At least that would seem to be a plausible situation.

---

Except good players don't want to be depth -- even for historical powers. The blue bloods are losing their backups to programs that can promise them starting jobs. That's why the gap has narrowed so dramatically.

---

It seems like every time I watch a game involving some mid majors, there are transfers from schools like Alabama and other big P4 programs. I'm sure it was driving Saban crazy. You simply can't pay everyone to stay.

If NIL money is truly funded by alumni and boosters, I'm not sure if schools like Alabama have such an advantage anymore.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

blackie said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

I agree. The problem is that there's no guarantee that the guys you developed will stay. It's crazy that SMU was given the death penalty for what every school has to do now to survive.

---

There are no guarantees, period, in modern college football. But most college players who are playing a lot and being taken care of monetarily don't transfer from power conference schools.

The bulk of transfers are still guys who either aren't playing as much or making as much as they want or G5 stars looking to rise the ranks.

I feel pretty confident in our ability to keep the bulk of our core together.

---

Agree on the guys that are playing. It's the promising back ups that concern me. Gonna be tough to have depth (and next year's starters) unless we're paying our back ups market rates too.

---

This is probably the difference that may show up between conferences. The blue bloods and their kin have the deeper pockets that can pay both the marquee players that start AND the backups that don't get on the field that much. Everybody else is having to use all their money just to satisfy the starters with not enough left over for the depth chart. At least that would seem to be a plausible situation.

---

Except good players don't want to be depth -- even for historical powers. The blue bloods are losing their backups to programs that can promise them starting jobs. That's why the gap has narrowed so dramatically.

---

It seems like every time I watch a game involving some mid majors, there are transfers from schools like Alabama and other big P4 programs. I'm sure it was driving Saban crazy. You simply can't pay everyone to stay.

If NIL money is truly funded by alumni and boosters, I'm not sure if schools like Alabama have such an advantage anymore.

---

Both NIL and the portal have been democratizing factors.

That's why I don't want to see the P2 codify a playoff advantage before we see the organic effects these things have on the playoff. We need to let this play out for five or 10 years without screwing it up. College football is changing and parity is the order of the day.

bear2be2 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I had high hopes for him when he first transferred here. Too bad it didn't work out better for both sides.

I don't blame him for transferring in this situation.

---

He's at best the third-best back in our rotation. Pendergrass basically assumed his role and did it better while he was out.

We're in really good shape at running back with Washington and Pendergrass. That's a really solid 1-2 punch.

---

And Richard Reese, he was freshman of year running back , a few yards shy if 1,000 yards. Also ran two kickoffs back for TDs last game last year.

bear2be2 said:

---

Jorkel said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

Won't those high school recruits just be 1-2 year mercenaries as well?

---

Speaking of Baylor specifically, it hasn't really worked that way. Under Aranda, retention hasn't really been a problem. Development has.

Some guys will transfer out for more playing time, etc., but statistics show guys are generally more loyal to their first program than subsequent programs.

I think most high school recruits choose a program with the intention of finishing their careers at that school. So fit and other non-football factors carry more weight in that process. I think most transfers are just looking for a short-term home to showcase their talents.

---

I know y'all tend to hate Aranda, but that may be something unique with him. You can't count on high school recruits wanting to sit on the bench for a while and develop in practice. That really is not how the world is anymore. They are also mercenaries for most programs.

PartyBear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Jorkel said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

The portal is kind of a pain in the ass. You're getting one- or two-year mercenaries with no real tie to the university or program who are as likely as not to quit if things don't go their way immediately.

It's a necessary component of modern roster building, but I think teams will eventually find that you're still better off recruiting and developing high school talent for your core. The most successful programs long term will be those adding a few transfers to fill very specific roles IMO.

---

Won't those high school recruits just be 1-2 year mercenaries as well?

---

Speaking of Baylor specifically, it hasn't really worked that way. Under Aranda, retention hasn't really been a problem. Development has.

Some guys will transfer out for more playing time, etc., but statistics show guys are generally more loyal to their first program than subsequent programs.

I think most high school recruits choose a program with the intention of finishing their careers at that school. So fit and other non-football factors carry more weight in that process. I think most transfers are just looking for a short-term home to showcase their talents.

---

I know y'all tend to hate Aranda, but that may be something unique with him. You can't count on high school recruits wanting to sit on the bench for a while and develop in practice. That really is not how the world is anymore. They are also mercenaries for most programs.

---

No one is talking about depth staying. If players don't want to be depth at Alabama, they're not going to stay at Baylor to be.

I'm talking about core, rotation guys. A good percentage of those guys need to be home grown every year if we want/plan to build a sustained winner.

And no one hates Aranda that I'm aware of. He's been justifiably criticized because he hasn't won enough games the past three years. Hopefully, that's starting to change, but he's still got a lot of work ahead of him.

Paying players becomes legal and they start winning again

boykin_spaniel said:

---

Paying players becomes legal and they start winning again

---

Yeah, I guess they were just visionaries and ahead of their time.