• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Age based rule to be implemented

CDAGRIZ said:
I think the portal has become a substitution for retirement in a LOT of cases, so I'm not sure we can look at the number of players in the portal as a representation of viable players, if that makes sense. Lot of "fluff" in there, lol.
Click to expand...
I agree. Lots of players are in Portal because they were cut and they don't find a home, is my impression.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
I would like to add that currently athletes are getting extra seasons for JC years or non-NCAA years and for a multitude of other reasons. With the new rule that states the 5 year clock starts at age 19, it probably negates this type of player which would open spots.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I was talking about on page 1 or 2 (lol) about maybe the Peter Pan cases lessening the impact but also being the vast minority of all cases. It's a good point.
 
SACCAT66 said:
So it goes from 5 years to play 4, to 5 years to play 5... I get your point on High School recruiting, but I think it will actually benefit the G6, and FCS. There is even more incentive for them to come to one of those levels, and play right away, as you will get an extra year at an FBS if you transfer up? (I also, didn't read every post, so you may have already covered this.) I agree with the other poster, that you will see more players leave after year 2-3 if they aren't playing. over 1,000 FBS players entered the Portal last year, and never found a team.
Click to expand...
Good point in your benefit G6 and FCS. That also will make it tougher for high school kids to get recruited to FCS.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
I think the portal has become a substitution for retirement in a LOT of cases, so I'm not sure we can look at the number of players in the portal as a representation of viable players, if that makes sense. Lot of "fluff" in there, lol.
Click to expand...
Yeah I've made this point before. The kind of guys who in the 2000's who would just silently wash out of a program are now making IG graphics thanking the team and declaring for the portal.
 
mthoopsfan said:
But it will give many players and good players an extra year, and that wlll crowd out other and younger players. That's one of the main points. I assume you mean roster attrition for players that still have eligibility?
Click to expand...
And it will wash out more of the players that have been in the program and not cracked the rotation. I don't think the effect on high school recruits will be as negatively impacted as many seem to think.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
Hoops, how many kids in any recruiting class stick around a full 4 or 5 years at a school?
Click to expand...
Almost all of the ones getting some playing time or on or close to the two-deep, or have medical redshirts.

What is changing is that players can all play 5 years, and the better players will stay for 5 years (meaning an extra year for any who redshirted in the past) and will take away playing time and scholarships from other players. As CDA is saying, it will happen by definition with the numbers. I don't know how or why you would even dispute that. Saying that it won't be a full 20% or it will be a magnitude thing is fine, and correct. CDA and I disagree with you on magnitude too.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Almost all of the ones getting some playing time or on or close to the two-deep, or have medical redshirts.

What is changing is that players can all play 5 years, and the better players will stay for 5 years (meaning an extra year for any who redshirted in the past) and will take away playing time and scholarships from other players. As CDA is saying, it will happen by definition with the numbers. I don't know how or why you would even dispute that. Saying that it won't be a full 20% or it will be a magnitude thing is fine, and correct. CDA and I disagree with you on magnitude too.
Click to expand...
Thanks for not answering the actual question.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
This entire thing is a magnitude argument, no matter what your belief.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, at least at the beginning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you originally saying it would only really affect the 2027s? And now you see that it will have an effect in perpetuity, but think it will be negligible? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'm genuinely asking.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
Not exactly, at least at the beginning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you originally saying it would only really affect the 2027s? And now you see that it will have an effect in perpetuity, but think it will be negligible? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'm genuinely asking.
Click to expand...
I still believe that beyond the 27's the impact will be minimal at worst for high school recruits.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
I still believe that beyond the 27's the impact will be minimal at worst for high school recruits.
Click to expand...
And that's different than no effect.
It's not a logical disagreement; it's a forecast/prediction.

One thing I want to ask you is if coaches value experienced players more than freshmen, why would we expect the new ability to keep experienced players for a fifth season (or replace older non-producers with other, already older players) to have only a negligible long-term effect on freshman opportunities? Logically, we'd have to see a shift devaluing experience (odd), or the already existing sources of attrition to increase by the same amount of 5th year players playing.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
And that's different than no effect.
It's not a logical disagreement; it's a forecast/prediction.

One thing I want to ask you is if coaches value experienced players more than freshmen, why would we expect the new ability to keep experienced players for a fifth season (or replace older non-producers with other, already older players) to have only a negligible long-term effect on freshman opportunities? Logically, we'd have to see a shift devaluing experience (odd), or the already existing sources of attrition to increase by the same amount of 5th year players playing.
Click to expand...
And teams already forecast/predict rosters on a 5 year cycle. Of course experience matters, but when you have a roster of 100, is having 20-25 freshman an issue? My whole contention was you don't get rid of recruiting high school, you purge guy 65-75, the guy that didn't work out, and replace him with better experience.
 
This is interesting:
Currently enrolled athletes with eligibility remaining after the 2025-26 academic year will be allowed to apply the age-based model or continue with the previous eligibility rules, whichever is most beneficial to that individual.

I *think* that the new rules would only benefit players who started college right away, didn't take a RS year, AND still have eligibility remaining. Looking at the roster, there's only a few guys this would apply to.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
And teams already forecast/predict rosters on a 5 year cycle. Of course experience matters, but when you have a roster of 100, is having 20-25 freshman an issue? My whole contention was you don't get rid of recruiting high school, you purge guy 65-75, the guy that didn't work out, and replace him with better experience.
Click to expand...
What you are missing is that there will be a bunch of new 5th year players available, and more as time goes on because players won't redshirt. Thus, more good frosh will be playing. So, those two things will be a double negative whammy for high school recruits, as well as older marginal players.

There is only so much playing time in the system. There are only so many scholarships. There now will be more older, seasoned players playing and taking up playing time and scholarships. Every good 4th year player is now eligible to play a 5th year. Every good frosh is now available and will add to the number of frosh playing. The only offsets are 5th years who have gotten hurt or who decided not to play a 5th year. Those who redshirt already stay for a 5th year, so why wouldn't they play their frosh year and stay for a 5th year?

The forecast/predicting of rosters will now change because of what I said in my first paragraph.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
And teams already forecast/predict rosters on a 5 year cycle. Of course experience matters, but when you have a roster of 100, is having 20-25 freshman an issue? My whole contention was you don't get rid of recruiting high school, you purge guy 65-75, the guy that didn't work out, and replace him with better experience.
Click to expand...
OK, now that's changing the discussion. I never said HS recruiting disappears, man. I've only said there will be fewer annual opportunities for HS seniors than there otherwise would have been. Those are different things.

You say, "but when you have a roster of 100, is having 20-25 freshman an issue?" That's exactly what's in dispute, lol. The question is, "Will teams still carry as many freshmen?"

I don't disagree that the first players squeezed may be guys 65-75 on the roster. In fact, I think that's probably right. My point is simply that those players don't disappear from the system. Many transfer to another school, where they now compete for another roster spot. So, while the immediate effect may fall on existing college players, I think the downstream effect still reaches high school recruiting. What I never said once is that any school will get rid of HS recruiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top