Age based rule to be implemented

[Da Boyz Mom]

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).

I hear what you're saying. I just take issue with the fact that you keep saying that 25% of the roster would turn over yearly previously. Which isn't true. Because any player that stayed at one school throughout their tenure could stay 5 years. That fact hasn't changed, only the fact that instead of only playing for 4 years, they can now play for 5 years. They still take up the same amount of time and space on the roster. Your second point I agree with, which is that now most coaches are going to want players that can play almost immediately rather than putting them on the shelf for a year as a red shirt. So that part is definitely a consideration. But the roster numbers are still the same. What the coaches want out of those numbers on the roster is definitely going to change though.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

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.

But that's already a fact under the roster cap that was changed previously. It seems like you're equating two things that are actually separate issues.

Plus with the implementation of the portal, there's plenty of attrition that has nothing to do with graduation. I just don't think the first part of your point is as relevant as the second part of your point.

 

[tourist]

This throws a whole different wrench into recruiting strategy.

Die Hard

@DieHard

“Just a fly in the ointment, Hans. The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass.”

 

[tourist]

Here's a suggestion for you, HHB. Look up the word 'rant.' Here, I looked it up for you.

A rant is a long, loud, andA rant is a long, loud, and emotionally charged speech or piece of writing oftenI takes the form of a tirade or an angry fueled more by passion and frustration than by cold facts. complaint. It often takes the form of a tirade or an angry complaint.

There, I feel better now...

 

[tourist]

Here's a suggestion for you, HHB. Look up the word 'rant.' Here, I looked it up for you.

A rant is a long, loud, a rant is a long, loud, and emotionally charged speech or piece of writing oftenI takes the form of a tirade or an angry fueled more by passion and frustration than by cold facts. complaint. It often takes the form of a tirade or an angry complaint.

There, I feel better now...

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

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.

I think you math is incorrect in your example. The thing is, most kids end up on the roster for 5 years now give or take a few, so the recruiting mindset wouldn't differ much whether the get 5 years for 4 or 5 years for 5 after the first year of kids that exhausted eligibility get an additional year. You are assuming a 4 year cycle to a 5 year cycle, but it is really all a 5 year cycle. I think people are over reacting to the impact this will have on high school recruiting after the first few cycles.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Here's a suggestion for you, HHB. Look up the word 'rant.' Here, I looked it up for you.

A rant is a long, loud, andA rant is a long, loud, and emotionally charged speech or piece of writing oftenI takes the form of a tirade or an angry fueled more by passion and frustration than by cold facts. complaint. It often takes the form of a tirade or an angry complaint.

There, I feel better now...

Your posts are a continual rant, and quite often nothing but odd rambling.

 

[mthoopsfan]

But that's already a fact under the roster cap that was changed previously. It seems like you're equating two things that are actually separate issues.

Plus with the implementation of the portal, there's plenty of attrition that has nothing to do with graduation. I just don't think the first part of your point is as relevant as the second part of your point.

What's already a fact under the roster cap? Under the current roster cap, players can play only 4 years. So, they are either gone after playing 4, or they have to redshirt 1 of the years. CDA is right in my view. Now, 25% more players are coming into the active/plahing system every year, subject to them already being able to play 4 redshirt games.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I hear what you're saying. I just take issue with the fact that you keep saying that 25% of the roster would turn over yearly previously. Which isn't true. Because any player that stayed at one school throughout their tenure could stay 5 years. That fact hasn't changed, only the fact that instead of only playing for 4 years, they can now play for 5 years. They still take up the same amount of time and space on the roster. Your second point I agree with, which is that now most coaches are going to want players that can play almost immediately rather than putting them on the shelf for a year as a red shirt. So that part is definitely a consideration. But the roster numbers are still the same. What the coaches want out of those numbers on the roster is definitely going to change though.

Ok, I think I see what you're thinking now. Your point would be stronger is literally every player redshirted. We know that's not the case, even in FB. Most definitely not the case in other sports. Example: Junior Bergen would've played last season for us. Whomever we signed to replace Bergen's roster spot wouldn't have been signed.

 

[tourist]

Your posts are a continual rant, and quite often nothing but odd rambling.

Another suggestion: Use the 'Ignore' function if you wish.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Ok, I think I see what you're thinking now. Your point would be stronger is literally every player redshirted. We know that's not the case, even in FB. Most definitely not the case in other sports. Example: Junior Bergen would've played last season for us. Whomever we signed to replace Bergen's roster spot wouldn't have been signed.

The reality is though, there is no limit to how many kids you recruit per year, just a total limit for the roster. With normal attrition, over a 5 year cycle, not much will change for numbers on the recruiting side.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I think you math is incorrect in your example. The thing is, most kids end up on the roster for 5 years now give or take a few, so the recruiting mindset wouldn't differ much whether the get 5 years for 4 or 5 years for 5 after the first year of kids that exhausted eligibility get an additional year. You are assuming a 4 year cycle to a 5 year cycle, but it is really all a 5 year cycle. I think people are over reacting to the impact this will have on high school recruiting after the first few cycles.

If kids can now play 5 years under the new rule, then that affects recruiting. Teams will keep their best veteran players for the 5th year, and not recruit as many high school kids. More players will play more as frosh and not redshirt. Yes, it's true that only players not redshirting will impact the numbers. Both playing time and scholarship numbers will be impacted, just not to the full 20% of the new 5th year of playing.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Another suggestion: Use the 'Ignore' function if you wish.

And forego the chance to laugh at your craziness.

 

[mthoopsfan]

The reality is though, there is no limit to how many kids you recruit per year, just a total limit for the roster. With normal attrition, over a 5 year cycle, not much will change for numbers on the recruiting side.

I don't agree. What you said is not correct. Some number of the new 5th year players are going to impact the numbers for recruiting and scholarships.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

But that's already a fact under the roster cap that was changed previously. It seems like you're equating two things that are actually separate issues.

Plus with the implementation of the portal, there's plenty of attrition that has nothing to do with graduation. I just don't think the first part of your point is as relevant as the second part of your point.

The roster cap and the 5-year rule aren't separate, they collide. Because of the roster cap, it’s a zero-sum game. Under the old rules, stars who didn’t redshirt were forced to leave after 4 playing seasons. Now they can stay for a 5th, effectively blocking a high schooler. And you’re right, the portal causes massive attrition. But who do coaches replace those guys with now? Since the new rule kills redshirts, coaches won't waste spots on 18yo projects. They will use the portal to grab a developed 22yo vet who has a 5th year of eligibility ready to go. That part (the portal utilization) gets even more real than it was before.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

If kids can now play 5 years under the new rule, then that affects recruiting. Teams will keep their best veteran players for the 5th year, and not recruit as many high school kids. More players will play more as frosh and not redshirt. Yes, it's true that only players not redshirting will impact the numbers. Both playing time and scholarship numbers will be impacted, just not to the full 20% of the new 5th year of playing.

First, no one other than you is mentioning playing time as the discussion has been about number of high school kids that can be recruited each year. Second, most kids recruited on a 5 year cycle, so it is assumed they will be around 5 years. This won't change, but would mean fewer roster spots year one if all rostered players with eligibility remain, but we all know with roster attrition, this isn't the case. So moving forward, teams will still be able to recruit just as many kids as before.

 

[tourist]

And forego the chance to laugh at your craziness.

I knew God put me here for a reason!

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I don't agree. What you said is not correct. Some number of the new 5th year players are going to impact the numbers for recruiting and scholarships.

Only at the beginning.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

What's already a fact under the roster cap? Under the current roster cap, players can play only 4 years. So, they are either gone after playing 4, or they have to redshirt 1 of the years. CDA is right in my view. Now, 25% more players are coming into the active/plahing system every year, subject to them already being able to play 4 redshirt games.

Right but the majority of players redshirt and they don't play right away. So the 25% is inaccurate.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

I think you math is incorrect in your example. The thing is, most kids end up on the roster for 5 years now give or take a few, so the recruiting mindset wouldn't differ much whether the get 5 years for 4 or 5 years for 5 after the first year of kids that exhausted eligibility get an additional year. You are assuming a 4 year cycle to a 5 year cycle, but it is really all a 5 year cycle. I think people are over reacting to the impact this will have on high school recruiting after the first few cycles.

That's exactly my point that I obviously wasn't making very well because nobody understood me. But thank you.