Hard to dispute that, there does not seem to be much in the way of notable incoming freshmen around the MAC while we boast Elliott, Evans, & Burris. Call me crazy but I'd prefer this to Akron-like transfer excitement.
To an extent, I agree. My hesitation is that this is the "transfer age" and it feels like Boals is trying to build a program from youth in an era when the youth doesn't often stay where they started. I know we've done well the past couple of years of retaining talent, but in any given season, we can be gutted. Akron may have to reboot their roster every couple of years, but the guys they are bringing in seem more likely to contribute immediately rather than develop in the program and play in a year or two. If we develop guys and keep them here, I'm all for it. I just can't depend on that happening in the current era.
I think Boals has shown he wants a mixture of players. He's gone after upperclassmen transfers as well as high school seniors. The hope is that you can retain the youngsters for a few seasons and limit the roster turnover on a yearly basis.
It's not guaranteed to work but it should help with roster retention since you'll commit less NIL money to unproven players while they're developing with more experienced players in front of them. When the older players leave, it provides the opportunity for the young players to step up. If they haven't shown enough in practice, you can advise them to move on and target more experienced transfers. It's honestly not a bad strategy if Boals can continue to cultivate a successful culture with the "right type of guys"
The Akron method is hit-or-miss. You can hit a home run and be very successful or you can bomb. Either scenario, it'll likely lead to high turnover on a yearly basis.
So far, the Zips have had more success so it's hard to argue with their approach but it's certainly more of a grind and leaves less margin of error. If you miss out on your intended targets or they don't live up to your expectations, it can make things really difficult.