Here is how many commits we have had the last three years...
2011 - 27
2012 - 21
2013 - 21
I don't understand why we had back to back classes of 21 when we were hurting so bad talent wise? It's really odd. Maybe in 2012 we had to compensate for taking 27 in 2011 (but that should mean we could take 23?), but back to back classes of only 21 when we were hurting so bad?
The only explanation I can come up with is that Dooley just recruited poorly in 2012 regardless of what the numbers game was, and Butch"fillers". I think he may have given some of those schollies to walk ons also, but (a) it suxes that we had low numbers in back to back years when we are at our lowest talent level since at least 1988 (and more likely 1981 or so) and (b) wow, did Dooley sux!
Of course, the silver lining is that no doubt only taking 21 last year helps us with numbers this year, which might have been part of Butch's reasoning last year.
So does anyone else have an explanation why we would only take 21 in back to back years? I can understand doing that one year, but not two in a row.