• 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

mthoopsfan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. I think it all boils down to one question: Does the average amount of time athletes occupy roster spots in the college sports system increase now that they can play 5 years?

If yes, annual turnover falls and vacancies decrease.
If no, annual turnover and vacancies remain the same.

I would think it's a safe assumption that, on average, in the whole of college sports, the average time players play would increase if the new default became 5 years instead of 4.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
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.
Click to expand...
I misspoke, I didn't mean to say anything about disappearing, but the impact on high school recruits will be minimal. Schools will still have approximately the same number of high school recruits on the roster on average in 2-3 years as they do now. Most these 5 year guys will either stay and guys behind him will leave or go to a place they can play and not be #4 or 5 on the depth chart, hence having guys at their new school leaving for the same possible scenario. But all the guys in their 5th year guys aren't going to minimize the importance of recruiting high school kids. I will lose no sleep if a school recruits 23 guys instead of 25. I also think if you research, less than 20% of college athletes exhaust their eligibility in less than 5 years. Compound this with the actual number that make it 4 or 5 years, and you are talking about a minimal number of athletes. So 75-80% of athletes take 5 years currently, so minimal change giving them 5 for 5.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
I misspoke, I didn't mean to say anything about disappearing, but the impact on high school recruits will be minimal. Schools will still have approximately the same number of high school recruits on the roster on average in 2-3 years as they do now. Most these 5 year guys will either stay and guys behind him will leave or go to a place they can play and not be #4 or 5 on the depth chart, hence having guys at their new school leaving for the same possible scenario. But all the guys in their 5th year guys aren't going to minimize the importance of recruiting high school kids. I will lose no sleep if a school recruits 23 guys instead of 25. I also think if you research, less than 20% of college athletes exhaust their eligibility in less than 5 years. Compound this with the actual number that make it 4 or 5 years, and you are talking about a minimal number of athletes. So 75-80% of athletes take 5 years currently, so minimal change giving them 5 for 5.
Click to expand...
I think we agree on the mechanism and just disagree on the magnitude. If a school signs 20 (or 22 or 23) instead of 25 high school players, that's exactly the type of ongoing effect I've been describing. Whether two or five fewer signees per program is minimal or significant is an opinion, but it's different from saying the effect is limited to the first recruiting class.

One thing: Is the 75-80% figure football specifically, and is it referring to five calendar years in college or five seasons of playing?
 
Last edited:
CDAGRIZ said:
I think we agree on the mechanism and just disagree on the magnitude. If a school signs 20 (or 22 or 23) instead of 25 high school players, that's exactly the type of ongoing effect I've been describing. Whether two or five fewer signees per program is minimal or significant is an opinion, but it's different from saying the effect is limited to the first recruiting class.

One thing: Is the 75–80% figure football specifically, and is it referring to five calendar years in college or five seasons of playing?
Click to expand...
But the thing is, the number of high school signings isn't a static number. The number of signings moving forward will still be within the range they are now and any decline over the long-term will be minimal overall.

That number is for college athletes overall based on 5 seasons. The number is also elevated because women sports.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
But the thing is, the number of high school signings isn't a static number. The number of signings moving forward will still be within the range they are now and any decline over the long-term will be minimal overall.

That number is for college athletes overall based on 5 seasons. The number is also elevated because women sports.
Click to expand...
Totally, and neither is the number of fifth year players. I think we agree that one (the number of 5th year players) can affect the other. Just might disagree on whether that effect will be material or meaningful. All good in the hood.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
But the thing is, the number of high school signings isn't a static number. The number of signings moving forward will still be within the range they are now and any decline over the long-term will be minimal overall.

That number is for college athletes overall based on 5 seasons. The number is also elevated because women sports.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The numbers don’t work for what you say.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
I misspoke, I didn't mean to say anything about disappearing, but the impact on high school recruits will be minimal. Schools will still have approximately the same number of high school recruits on the roster on average in 2-3 years as they do now. Most these 5 year guys will either stay and guys behind him will leave or go to a place they can play and not be #4 or 5 on the depth chart, hence having guys at their new school leaving for the same possible scenario. But all the guys in their 5th year guys aren't going to minimize the importance of recruiting high school kids. I will lose no sleep if a school recruits 23 guys instead of 25. I also think if you research, less than 20% of college athletes exhaust their eligibility in less than 5 years. Compound this with the actual number that make it 4 or 5 years, and you are talking about a minimal number of athletes. So 75-80% of athletes take 5 years currently, so minimal change giving them 5 for 5.
Click to expand...
Your number assumptions are way off. Getting to play a 5th season is significant, maybe huge.
 
Let’s make it easy for you to understand. Take Griz soccer, they have 25 rostered players with only 2 seniors. One of the seniors this is her 4 year so with new rule she has an extra year, Lexi is red shirt senior not sure on her eligibility assume this is her last year.

Going into 2026-2027 they will have 24 players, giving them 4 roster spots to fill. They committed 6 or 7 2027s this summer. They have to many players.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
Yes. I think it all boils down to one question: Does the average amount of time athletes occupy roster spots in the college sports system increase now that they can play 5 years?

If yes, annual turnover falls and vacancies decrease.
If no, annual turnover and vacancies remain the same.

I would think it's a safe assumption that, on average, in the whole of college sports, the average time players play would increase if the new default became 5 years instead of 4.
Click to expand...
Helena can’t see this. It’s obvious to me. 5th year players will take up a lot of slots.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Helena can’t see this. It’s obvious to me. 5th year players will take up a lot of slots.
Click to expand...
Yes, schools have already began to decommitt there 2927s. Some schools have started to cut incoming freshman who were expected to be on campus in two weeks. Griz are in alot of better shape than most schools, maybe Chris leaving and taking half the team was a blessing in disguise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top