2025 Recruiting

[FUwolfpacker]

Updated Commitment List

OL Brady Smith 6'2" 280, Christ Presbyterian Academy (TN)
Offers: Furman, Mercer, Samford, Central Arkansas, UNLV, Navy, Arkansas St, Elon, Lafayette, Penn, UT Martin, SEMO, Lindenwood, Air Force, Austin Peay, Cornell, Wofford, Missouri St, Army, ODU

OL Hunter Taylor 6'6" 295, Greenville HS (SC)
Offers: Furman, Wofford, The Citadel, Austin Peay, Elon, Dartmouth, Central Mich, Cornell, CCU, Charlotte

RB CJ Nettles 5'9" 180, Pensacola Catholic (FL)
Offers: Furman, Liberty, Mercer, FAU, Ark St, Austin Peay, App St, Florida A&M, Ga St, North Alabama, Miami (OH)

OL Bryce Rainwater 6'4" 305, Hillcrest HS (SC)
Offers: Furman, Wofford, The Citadel

LB Caleb Ellison 6’0” 220, Oakland HS (TN)
Offers: Furman, Bryant, Toledo, Tenn St, WKU, UTM, NM

WR Braylon Stewart 6'2" 180, Middle Creek HS (NC)
Offers: Furman, New Hampshire, Mercer, Wofford, Richmond, Cornell, Austin Peay, Chuck South, Campbell, Gardner Webb, Bryant, Bucknell

DB Connor Adams 5'11" 180, Old Mill HS (MD)
Offers: Furman, VMI, Richmond, Morgan St, UMass, Stony Brook, Kent St

WR Evan James 5'10" 160, The First Academy (FL)
Offers: Furman, Temple, Ole Miss, WKU, Pitt, WVU, Wofford, GA St, Delaware St, Marshall

DE Maddox Dykeman 6'8" 255, Macintosh HS (GA)
Offers: Furman, Toledo, ECU (PWO?), Troy, Cornell, Illinois St, AF, Buffalo, Brown, UMass, Elon , W&M, Stony Brook

OL Eli Dorton 6'5" 300, Anderson Co HS (TN)
Offers: Furman, WIU, Bryant, Penn, AF, Fordham, Georgetown, Navy, Elon, Cornell, Dartmouth, Wofford, Army

K Bruce Brown 6’2” 200, Daniel HS (SC)

[The Jackal]

Looking at these last two or three classes, I suspect that in a couple of years we are going to have an absolutely massive offensive line. All of these guys appear to be 6'4+ and approximately 300 lbs.

[cavedweller2]

Each year we take a step to two closer to lining up on equal or superior footing to the NDSU’s and SDSU’s of the world. We are kicking the door in.

[gofurman]

Each year we take a step to two closer to lining up on equal or superior footing to the NDSU’s and SDSU’s of the world. We are kicking the door in.

Hope that’s the case here. Like to see the WVU and Pitt offers . Great !

[FUwolfpacker]

Cave mentioned getting to equal footing with NDSU/SDSU and I think the recent classes certainly point towards a move in that direction as Jackal and Astro have said in the past.

OL commits/signees from 22-23 to 24-25 classes:

2022-2023:
Brody Balliew 6-5, 265 (now 288)
Hayden Garner 6-5, 280 (now 292)
Chris Luna 6-3, 275 (now 290)

2023-2024:
Noah Akinsola 6-5, 285
Chase Gregork 6-4, 275
Steven O'Dell 6-7, 300

2024-2025:
Hunter Taylor 6-6, 295
Brady Smith 6-2, 280
Bryce Rainwater 6-4, 305

Of the 9 guys in these classes, only the 2 centers (Luna and Smith) are below 6'4". If you look at the older players Furman recruited (not transfers), most of those guys were/are in the 6'2" to 6'4" range. Again, outside of the centers, the most recent guys are the 6'4" to 6'7" range. On field performance matters more than measurables obviously, but they certainly are starting to bring in guys that look more like the Dakota schools' linemen. I believe the move to try and integrate more of the Dakotas look is even more obvious if you look at the trend in the TE room.

Brock Chappell 6-5 240
Brennan Tormey 6-7, 226
Jackson Pryor 6-5, 210

Tormey and Pryor certainly need to add weight, but you can see Furman bringing in tall guys with good mobility with the plan to add weight. More in the mold of a Dallas Goedert and Tucker Craft who have been NFL caliber TEs for SDSU over the last decade. Prior to signing Chappell and Tormey, Furman hadn't signed a high school TE since 2020 (unless I missed one) when they signed Jack Healy and Landon Whittmore, two guys who were gone almost immediately from the program. Ryan Miller didn't fit this current mold but was very productive during that time. Gissinger was a move more to what we needed as an in-line blocker with some receiving ability. Pline was that great combo everyone is looking for now. Mobile receiving threat who is good enough and big enough to be a problem on the line as well.

A lot of this is projection and may never come to fruition. It does seem though that Furman certainly wants to move more towards that SDSU style with their own hybrid TE twist (Miller/Burrell).

[The Jackal]

The TE position has been an interesting one to follow at Furman.

Hendrix inherited virtually no depth at TE. It was a position that really had not seen a lot of solid recruiting in a number of years, with the most prominent at the position during the Fowler years being converted QBs (Duncan Fletcher and Colin Anderson).

Furman got by with a number of excellent athletes that were able to fill the role. It has not been until recently that you've seen the Paladin program really able to start landing a guys that are more traditional type TEs.

I would suspect that 2023 was maybe the first year that Furman really showcased a true two-TE attack since maybe Hedden/Truss in 2008ish. Furman now has some size at those spots and guys that aren't just big, but are big and can move.

I'm interested to see if Tormey puts on some weight with the new updated roster. Tormey is listed at 6'7 226 as a freshman. It's worth mentioning, I think, that in his first season at Ferris State (as a basketball player) Mason Pline was roughly the same size (listed at 230). Pline finished playing football for Furman at around 260.

[AstroDin]

Great points by Wolf and Jackal!!!
Ya'll sparked a few thoughts.

I love our offense; Furman plays with a physical style but will also gut you with players who can grab yards after the catch. Last season, Roper's offense was a showcase for the tight-end position. Most eyes were on Pline, keeping Chappel in the shadows. I think Chappell is the prototype Furman TE. At 6-5 and 240, Brock is athletic and physical, a great blocker in the run game, and an underrated pass catcher.

Of course, the other TE position is the Furman Hybrid TE position, which has now produced two NFL players. No doubt this played a role in Burrell transferring to Furman. Brennan Tormey, I think, will step into this role next; he played WR and TE in HS.

Back to the O-lIne, I think we skipped a starter… Eli Brasher (6-4 288): I'd pencil him in at OT. With Furman's future offensive line being an average height of over 6-4, it also looks like gone are the days of Furman quarterbacks that hover around 6-0. Jones is 6-2, Garcia is 6-3, and Hedden is 6-3.

Lastly, running back. Furman has mostly had running backs that weigh over 200 pounds; this year's class, Robinson 208, Hicks 212, Hughes 211, and Smith 208. I'm excited to see what Roper and the staff do with Gavin Hall; Hall is 5-10 188. If you've seen his photos, he's a solid 188, but I'm unsure if he'll ever hit 200 pounds. I'd expect Hall to be used similarly to Wayne Anderson. Waiting in the wings is committed CJ Nettles 5-8, 160, a bolt of lightning.

[FUwolfpacker]

Sorry for the long post!

So, no Furman specific recruiting news to share as it's a dead period, but a post by one of the guys covering NC State recruiting got me thinking about what we might see in regards to this class specifically. Fair warning, this may be a long post of "set-up" before getting to the actual things to watch for this years class.

We know that the NCAA recently passed the change from a 85 scholarships limit and 120 (I think) player roster limit to a 105 player roster max where all of those players are scholarship players. I believe that's supposed to go into effect next year. I thought I read that the only schools bound to this number are those that are going to be revenue sharing with the players. Donnelly recently indicated that Furman is going to be opting in to being D1, meaning they will pay the cost per year for the next 10 years to help cover the NIL settlement that was recently reached, but he also said Furman will not be revenue sharing as we do not have revenue beyond our expenses (probably similar to most other FCS schools). Now, what I haven't seen clarification on is if that means we can continue to operate under the 63 equivalency/120 roster max (?) that we are currently on or if that means we still have to follow the 105 limit but we can continue with the 63 and walk-ons model. It might be out there but I just haven't seen it yet. From what I understand now, I don't think we'll see much change in regards to the number of kids Furman is bringing in year to year. However, the pool of players we are recruiting may change a bit.

So based on what I've seen, the P4 schools aren't just going to give the 20 best walk-ons scholarships. It's probably going to be more like 5-10 at most. So you're probably looking at 10-15 more scholarship athletes these P4 schools are going to be looking to take. I've seen multiple recruiting coverage guys say they've been told that a lot of those targets are going to be coming from kids committed at the G5 level. If that's true, that likely means some movement at the FCS level as well. Granted, a lot of our commits already have offers from some at the G5 level, so we may not see much change this year. Hard to say at this point. I feel like there are still some things that need clarification. It's not like many FCS commits don't already have G5 offers. The issue will be how many of them commit to revenue sharing, how much that ends up being for G5 players, and whether or not that's enough to make some of the FCS commits reconsider playing for a G5 school.

According to UAB's Trent Dilfer, they are usually fighting for those guys that would be 78-85 on a P4 roster and that they are "recruiting better players" than the preferred walk-ons at some of these P4 schools. If that's true, we may see some of these P4 PWO's trickle down past the G5 to the FCS level. Will be interesting to see what happens. I imagine a lot of these soon to be displaced walk-ons will just be out of football altogether.

TL;DR: The 105 player roster limit goes into effect this year which likely means some P4 teams poaching players from G5 classes. This may or may not be an issue for us depending on if the G5 schools commit to revenue sharing and how much that matters to the FCS commits with G5 offers.

Just something to be aware of going forward. Not sure how much commitment chaos this is going to cause yet, but I feel like it has to cause some. Maybe not at Furman, but we'll see.

Has anyone seen any in-depth look at what will change of FCS schools not opting in to revenue sharing? I couldn't find anything, but it was a fairly quick look. All I saw is that G5 and FCS schools would have to opt-in to revenue sharing to be subject to the new rules.

[FUBeAR]

Noticed you talked about a previous roster limit of 120.

FUBeAR knows we previously had a limit of Players who could participate in preseason practice before the 1st day of classes…maybe 95…BUT … We had 131 on the roster last year…99.9% certain of that.

Someone else mentioned that 120 roster limit to me … so, it’s coming from somewhere. Just not sure we have it right.

As the guru FUWP’er, can you do a little research on this … see if it was an FBS-only thing or maybe it was not a “tight” and once clarified, note any adjustments that the clarification might have to your posted thoughts, if any?

Also - just curious about this - Service Academies - have had 0 Scholarships (because all Players were paid as enlisted AFmen and school was free), with an unlimited roster - would have 150+ in the program (and another 80-100 at the prep school, but those don’t ‘count’). Their only limit was on the number of Official Visits they could do each recruiting cycle - think maybe it was 50. Obviously, they want to stay FBS G5, but they surely aren’t gonna do RevShare…don’t know if their Players can get NIL (doubtful, FUBeAR would imagine)…and with their level of attrition, roster limits will be near-impossible for them to handle. What does this all mean for them? WOULD LOVE to see all 3 of them move to FCS where they better fit. Any knowledge/thoughts on this topic?

[FUwolfpacker]

Noticed you talked about a previous roster limit of 120.

FUBeAR knows we previously had a limit of Players who could participate in preseason practice before the 1st day of classes…maybe 95…BUT … We had 131 on the roster last year…99.9% certain of that.

Someone else mentioned that 120 roster limit to me … so, it’s coming from somewhere. Just not sure we have it right.

As the guru FUWP’er, can you do a little research on this … see if it was an FBS-only thing or maybe it was not a “tight” and once clarified, note any adjustments that the clarification might have to your posted thoughts, if any?

Also - just curious about this - Service Academies - have had 0 Scholarships (because all Players were paid as enlisted AFmen and school was free), with an unlimited roster - would have 150+ in the program (and another 80-100 at the prep school, but those don’t ‘count’). Their only limit was on the number of Official Visits they could do each recruiting cycle - think maybe it was 50. Obviously, they want to stay FBS G5, but they surely aren’t gonna do RevShare…don’t know if their Players can get NIL (doubtful, FUBeAR would imagine)…and with their level of attrition, roster limits will be near-impossible for them to handle. What does this all mean for them? WOULD LOVE to see all 3 of them move to FCS where they better fit. Any knowledge/thoughts on this topic?

Good questions as usual FUbear!

I wondered that same thing about the 120. An ESPN article I found mentioned this:

Current rules limit teams to 120 roster spots during the football season. There are no limits currently on how many players can be on a team's roster during spring practice or other parts of the offseason.

Maybe schools have had 120 or more listed in the online roster, but there is some secret "official" roster that was capped at 120. We definitely had more than 120 on the roster online last year. Having a hard time finding anything official from the NCAA. Just a bunch of articles mentioning the number.

Well, didn't want to but I pulled up the 2023-24 NCAA manual and found these two notes...

17.11.3.1.2 Limit on Number of Participants. [FBS/FCS] There is limit of 110 student-athletes who may engage
in practice activities prior to the institution's first day of classes or prior to the seventh day before the day of the
institution's first contest, whichever occurs earlier. (Adopted: 1/11/94, Revised: 12/15/06, 4/26/17 effective 8/1/17,
4/25/18, 5/19/21)

17.11.3.1.2.3 Exception -- National Service Academies -- Bowl Subdivision. [FBS] In bowl subdivision
football, there is no limit on the number of student-athletes who will be attending a national service academy and
who may engage in preseason practice activities. (Adopted: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04)


First one makes it a little more confusing. Still couldn't find the 120 number.

Second one points to what you were talking about with having well over the 110-120 number on service academy rosters. The manual also said they had a limit of 70 official visits compared to 56 for FBS/FCS. Since they aren't going to revenue share, the roster limit wouldn't apply to them anyways (based on my understanding). Knowing that and given all the exceptions they have, I doubt they would ever move to FCS but I agree that would be great!

I think the concept of not being bound by these rules if you aren't revenue sharing is the point I would like to see some clarification on going forward. Because the P4 schools are pretty much required to do it if they want to stay D1 due to the recent settlement, we know what they are going to be doing going forward. The G5 and FCS are where things get murky. If half the G5 schools don't revenue share and the other half do, how does that change things? I mean, does one side have a clear advantage if one is offering 105 scholarships but the other offers 85 but gets to keep their 35ish walk ons? Same thing for the FCS level. If NDSU opts in to revenue sharing, does that mean they can offer 105 scholarships? I wouldn't think they could stay FCS and do that. If they want to revenue share does that mean they can have a full 85 scholarships versus the 63 equivalency (with 85 "counters")? I haven't been able to find anything talking about the schools who don't opt in to revenue sharing.

I assume we'll hear more about it later on, but knowing that P4 teams are already gearing up to go find those 15-20 extra scholarship players, it would be interesting to know exactly what it's going to look like for G5/FCS schools going forward. Might be overthinking it, but it seems like the G5/FCS landscapes could get a little weird with different roster limits/scholarships offered (**assuming I understand all of this correctly to this point**)

[FUBeAR]

EDITED TO REFLECT “NEW” ROSTER LIMIT OF 105 instead of ‘wrong’ 120 used previously…105 vs. 120 really ‘flips the script’

Thanks - yeah, FUBeAR is thinking that 120 “roster limit” is an urban legend amplified by the media into a joyous TRUTH (much as the same way a political candidate can go from reviled to revered in a California minute).

So…if we assume it is a myth, FBS (for simplicity we’ll say ALL FBS Schools, for now) School’s, FUBeAR believes, typically had rosters composed roughly as follows…

85 Full Scholarship Players
25 “Preferred” Walk-On’s
——————-
110 Roster Players reporting in early August
5 (or fewer) “Non-Preferred” Walk-on’s
__________
115 Roster Players ‘all in’

New limit is 105 …

So…FUBeAR thinks we can assume that 20 or those same (in general) 25 “Preferred” Walk-On’s are still gonna go FBS and might have schollies now. They prolly had a few FCS offers, but wanted to wear the jersey @ Whattsamatta U.

So…FUBeAR thinks we could see a ‘net talent gain’ of (5 former FBS “Preferred” Walk-On’s + 5 FBS “Non-Preferred” Walk-On’s) = 10 x 134 Teams … so 1,340 Players who woulda been FBS may move to FCS rosters.

If we round up, that’s about 11 of each FBS Teams’ lesser Players that could be added to FCS rosters.

This assumes the ‘water’ in the Portal seeks its level and is, admittedly, a highly simplistic analysis ignoring many variables. Just wanted to suss it out cuz it seems people are kinda asking this question. Not sure if this is the correct answer, but it is AN answer.

FUBeAR thinks the noticeable difference of adding 11 ‘bottom-of-the-roster’ FBS Players to FCS rosters will be almost nil. So…IFBO…nothing to even think about. … Nevermind.

[youwouldno]

The new football roster limit (for revenue sharing) is 105. Conferences that don't opt to participate in the new agreement apparently maintain the old rules, basically making every NCAA (team) sport two-tier. For instance, SEC volleyball will have an 18-scholarship max, while SoCon will still be at 12.

The crux of the whole thing is a little unclear to me because the discussion is all about maximum revenue sharing. What about the minimum? Some of the language in isolation makes it appear conferences (or individual programs) could "opt-in" to this framework without really distributing much or any revenue, but I assume there are other provisions I haven't read which effectively block this.

A very interesting corollary to the revenue sharing is that the agreement cuts back on NIL pretty significantly by requiring that it be tied to the "fair market value" of the associated products/services. Everything over $600 has to be logged in a review system. So in theory at least, it can't be used as a straight cash funnel for revenue sharing conference programs. But the premier players would still get deals because they legitimately have a lot of value.

So then is NIL still the wild west for non revenue sharing conferences? That would seem to be a very odd situation, if so. Many questions and uncertainties remain.

The recruiting impact is hard to figure with so many moving parts . . . in the short run, presumably more scholarships has some dilutive effect, but on the other hand, it could increase the player population due to increased incentives. The deal helps weaker power conference programs beat out the G5 for mid-tier players, but I'm not sure how much practical impact that has over the players FCS schools recruit.

[FUBeAR]

The new football roster limit (for revenue sharing) is 105. Conferences that don't opt to participate in the new agreement apparently maintain the old rules, basically making every NCAA (team) sport two-tier. For instance, SEC volleyball will have an 18-scholarship max, while SoCon will still be at 12.

The crux of the whole thing is a little unclear to me because the discussion is all about maximum revenue sharing. What about the minimum? Some of the language in isolation makes it appear conferences (or individual programs) could "opt-in" to this framework without really distributing much or any revenue, but I assume there are other provisions I haven't read which effectively block this.

A very interesting corollary to the revenue sharing is that the agreement cuts back on NIL pretty significantly by requiring that it be tied to the "fair market value" of the associated products/services. Everything over $600 has to be logged in a review system. So in theory at least, it can't be used as a straight cash funnel for revenue sharing conference programs. But the premier players would still get deals because they legitimately have a lot of value.

So then is NIL still the wild west for non revenue sharing conferences? That would seem to be a very odd situation, if so. Many questions and uncertainties remain.

The recruiting impact is hard to figure with so many moving parts . . . in the short run, presumably more scholarships has some dilutive effect, but on the other hand, it could increase the player population due to increased incentives. The deal helps weaker power conference programs beat out the G5 for mid-tier players, but I'm not sure how much practical impact that has over the players FCS schools recruit.

Non-Furman Collegiate Athletics peeps, if FUBeAR understood them correctly, have told FUBeAR that the NIL ‘reforms’ you are describing are across the board - not only for RevShare Schools … which means the Pay-to-Come, Pay-to-Play, Pay-to-Stay “Collectives” should be vanishing from the scene.

FUBeAR hopes he understood them correctly. FUBeAR is all for young people building themselves up as a monetized brand based around their athletics talent and/or appeal…and/or leveraging their talents in entrepreneurial ways. FUBeAR is all against college athletes being professional athletes. FUBeAR will not be interested in following/watching any “College” Teams involved in a RevShare model. Those are Professional Teams. If FUBeAR wants to watch Professional Football, he will watch the NFL. FUBeAR rarely watches the NFL. Has not for years.

Also - will re-do the previous post with 105 as the Roster Limit - got off track there…thanks!

[apaladin]

… which means the Pay-to-Come, Pay-to-Play, Pay-to-Stay “Collectives” should be vanishing from the scene.

[/quote]

I hope this is correct but just don’t see this going away. It’s already out there and it’s here to stay I’m afraid. Hope I’m wrong.

[FUwolfpacker]

If you’re a sicko (like me), commit Evan James and The First Academy are playing Lipscomb Academy streamed live on YouTube right now.