Age based rule to be implemented

[CDAGRIZ]

.

With the new 5 to play 5 there will be less scholarships or roster spaces available but those kids will begin to fall off a year later. I would also assume that this frees up schools to re-recruit 27 kids to replace other 27 kids.

But wouldn’t that just screw the 28 kids? I’m having trouble seeing how less yearly roster turnover doesn’t hurt HS recruiting as a whole in perpetuity. If it was 2 to play 2, HS recruiting would be crazy, if it was 10 to play 10, HS recruiting would be much less common. I guess the total number of spots stays the same, so maybe it works out somehow.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

.

But wouldn’t that just screw the 28 kids? I’m having trouble seeing how less yearly roster turnover doesn’t hurt HS recruiting as a whole in perpetuity.

There will be minimal turnover year 1, but those kids that would have exhausted eligibility will do so year 2.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

There will be minimal turnover year 1, but those kids that would have exhausted eligibility will do so year 2.

And be replaced by the 27 kids who didn’t get the kid the year before? Do you see what I’m saying at least?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

And be replaced by the 27 kids who didn’t get the kid the year before? Do you see what I’m saying at least?

Possible, but the clock starts with enrollment or age 19, so those 27 kids that bounce to 28 may only get 4 years. The first year would be the worst and it will begin to balance out moving forward.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Possible, but the clock starts with enrollment or age 19, so those 27 kids that bounce to 28 may only get 4 years. The first year would be the worst and it will begin to balance out moving forward.

I’m just not seeing a scenario where HS seniors are recruited at the same clip, even after year 1 of implementation. Not sure if you saw my edit before: If it was 10 to play 10, it’s easier to see how it would hurt HS recruiting. If it was 2 to play 2, it’s easy to see how it would help HS recruiting.

Maybe the elimination of Peter Pan cases and medical/waivers will balance out the extra default year? But those are the vast minority of cases across all sports, so I highly doubt it.

In the end, it could help top FCS programs on the margins kind of like the transfer portal can. Might see some would-be FBS talented HS seniors fall to FCS.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I’m just not seeing a scenario where HS seniors are recruited at the same clip, even after year 1 of implementation. Not sure if you saw my edit before: If it was 10 to play 10, it’s easier to see how it would hurt HS recruiting. If it was 2 to play 2, it’s easy to see how it would help HS recruiting.

Maybe the elimination of Peter Pan cases and medical/waivers will balance out the extra default year? But those are the vast minority of cases across all sports, so I highly doubt it.

In the end, it could help top FCS programs on the margins kind of like the transfer portal can. Might see some would-be FBS talented HS seniors fall to FCS.

I didn't say anything about "same clip". I did say year one would be the bloodbath and it would improve from there. But 5 to play 5 isn't much different than 5 to play 4.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I didn't say anything about "same clip". I did say year one would be the bloodbath and it would improve from there. But 5 to play 5 isn't much different than 5 to play 4.

5 to play 5 puts 20% more players on the field potentially, other than the 4 redshirt games for 20%. Seems that it will make playing time harder to get.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

5 to play 5 puts 20% more players on the field potentially, other than the 4 redshirt games for 20%. Seems that it will make playing time harder to get.

Did someone say anything about playing time earlier in the thread?

 

[mthoopsfan]

Did someone say anything about playing time earlier in the thread?

Yes. That’s what I said.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Yes. That’s what I said.

Earlier in the thread or just quoting me and adding it anyway.

 

[ResilientGriz]

17?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I didn't say anything about "same clip". I did say year one would be the bloodbath and it would improve from there. But 5 to play 5 isn't much different than 5 to play 4.

All I’m saying is there is a difference, and it wont just be year one. No team is perfectly distributed, but if one was, the “difference” could be quantified as a permanent 20% reduction in open roster spots versus now. 100 person team with 25 per class (old) versus 20 per class (new). 20 graduate each year versus 25.

25-20=5, 5/25=0.2=20%

I’m just using clean math examples for illustration that the difference won’t just be one year, I know the real world doesn’t have these numbers.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

All I’m saying is there is a difference, and it wont just be year one. No team is perfectly distributed, but if one was, the “difference” could be quantified as a permanent 20% reduction in open roster spots versus now. 100 person team with 25 per class (old) versus 20 per class (new). 20 graduate each year versus 25.

25-20=5, 5/25=0.2=20%

I’m just using clean math examples for illustration that the difference won’tot just be one year, I know the real world doesn’t have these numbers.

Okay my brain hurts. I wasn't understanding it at first, because in my mind each player already had 5 years to be on roster so what's the difference really? But I guess that there will be some who have played 4 that now can have an additional year? Is that what you're saying? So this would really only affect those who played as true freshmen and they would be getting an additional year right? But that can't be a very large percentage of the roster.

So in the long run I don't think the numbers would be that much different, but I guess I can see what you're saying about the short-term. I'm just not sure that it's as large as 20% of the roster.

 

[MontanaGrizSoccer]

This throws a whole different wrench into recruiting strategy.

With the new 5 to play 5 there will be less scholarships or roster spaces available but those kids will begin to fall off a year later. I would also assume that this frees up schools to re-recruit 27 kids to replace other 27 kids.

 

[MontanaGrizSoccer]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2069941971418857870

 

[mthoopsfan]

Okay my brain hurts. I wasn't understanding it at first, because in my mind each player already had 5 years to be on roster so what's the difference really? But I guess that there will be some who have played 4 that now can have an additional year? Is that what you're saying? So this would really only affect those who played as true freshmen and they would be getting an additional year right? But that can't be a very large percentage of the roster.

So in the long run I don't think the numbers would be that much different, but I guess I can see what you're saying about the short-term. I'm just not sure that it's as large as 20% of the roster.

You are right that it won’t be 20% more of time on field. But redshirts won’t have to be protected, so no worry about 4 games only. And those who played as true frosh will get a 5th year. And, it will impact available scholarships to some extent, i.e. by the number of true frosh. The 5 year limit will get some out of the scholarship system. Most FCS team aren’t able to afford to use all of their scholarships. I like the hard and fast limit. Still not sure on the age limit. Everyone doesn’t start college or football by the time they are 19.

 

[RABIDAWG]

Could this transition into athletes good enough for college sports actually enroll as students first, athletics as able? Sort of like back in the 50’s, 60’s? Horrors! Nope, it’s semi-pro now.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

All I’m saying is there is a difference, and it wont just be year one. No team is perfectly distributed, but if one was, the “difference” could be quantified as a permanent 20% reduction in open roster spots versus now. 100 person team with 25 per class (old) versus 20 per class (new). 20 graduate each year versus 25.

25-20=5, 5/25=0.2=20%

I’m just using clean math examples for illustration that the difference won’t just be one year, I know the real world doesn’t have these numbers.

So lets take your example, there would have been 25 graduate this year but now it is only 20 so there would be 25 (20+5 that were allowed another season) the following year. Each year after that 5 would slide each season and combined with the original 20, would still be 25.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Okay my brain hurts. I wasn't understanding it at first, because in my mind each player already had 5 years to be on roster so what's the difference really? But I guess that there will be some who have played 4 that now can have an additional year? Is that what you're saying? So this would really only affect those who played as true freshmen and they would be getting an additional year right? But that can't be a very large percentage of the roster.

So in the long run I don't think the numbers would be that much different, but I guess I can see what you're saying about the short-term. I'm just not sure that it's as large as 20% of the roster.

I know, it’s kind of weird to get my head around, too. Take the transitional implementation years out of it. Under the old system, players had 4 years of playing time. Now, they have 5 years of playing time.

In a perfect distribution example for simplicity, that means 25% of the roster used to leave each year. Now, only 20% of the roster leaves each year. It decreases yearly roster turnover no matter how you look at it, which means coaches simply have less need to sign as many high school seniors each year.

Because teams are bound by a roster cap, they can't just expand the team to hoard both groups. It is a zero-sum choice. Furthermore, without traditional redshirts or medical waivers, high school seniors who are signed will be on the playing clock immediately. That means there is less incentive to take on high school "projects" because you waste a valuable year of eligibility just developing them.

Now, couple it with the portal. At the top levels of CFB, does a coach choose a group of developed 22-year-olds or 18-year-olds fresh from HS to fill that smaller 20% hole? Obviously the former. This creates a trickle-down roster displacement where the 18-year-olds have to go somewhere lower. The recruits who would’ve gone to Alabama are displaced down to Boise, and the ones who would’ve gone to Boise are pushed down to the FCS (rough examples).

 

[CDAGRIZ]

So lets take your example, there would have been 25 graduate this year but now it is only 20 so there would be 25 (20+5 that were allowed another season) the following year. Each year after that 5 would slide each season and combined with the original 20, would still be 25.

I see what you're thinking, but the math doesn't work that way because you're treating the “extra year” like a one-time wave. You have to look at the total capacity of the building.

If you signed 25 players every year under the new 5-year system, your roster would balloon to 125 players by year five. But coaches aren't allowed to do that. So, to avoid breaking the roster cap, coaches are mathematically forced to drop their yearly intake from 25 down to 20 permanently. Those 5 missing spots per year don't “slide” or come back later.