• 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

Yes, the NCAA's sweeping decision to adopt the "5-in-5" age-based eligibility model (allowing athletes five seasons of competition within a strict five-year window) is expected to squeeze high school recruiting.
While the new rule simplifies a notoriously confusing waiver process, it creates a math problem for high school recruits when combined with the transfer portal and new roster caps.

Why High School Recruits Will Face Tougher Math​

The shift creates a dynamic where college coaches are incentivized to favor older, proven college talent over fresh high school graduates.

1. The Death of the Redshirt "Buffer"​

Under the old rules, a coach might recruit a raw high school prospect, sit them for a year to develop (a "redshirt" year), and still get four full seasons of play out of them. Under the new model, your five-year clock starts automatically at age 19 or high school graduation. Because athletes can now play all five years, coaches can keep an experienced, 22-year-old starter for an extra season instead of replacing them with an 18-year-old rookie.
Main Street Media of Tennessee

2. Preference for "Proven Capital"​

College sports has essentially become a professionalized environment with revenue sharing and NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness). Given the choice between using a roster spot on a high school player who needs two years in the weight room or retaining a 5th-year senior who has already played 40 games of college football or basketball, coaches will increasingly lean toward experience.
PBS

3. Hard Roster Caps vs. Open Portals​

The NCAA also instituted hard roster size caps alongside the new scholarship rules (e.g., college football is capped at 105 players; baseball at 34). Because coaches have a strict limit on total roster spots and can no longer stash unlimited "walk-ons," every spot is precious. If older players occupy those spots for a 5th year, the number of open slots available for incoming high school freshmen naturally shrinks.
NCSA

The Bottom Line: High school athletes aren't being locked out entirely, but the "developmental" high school recruit is becoming a rarity. Elite, five-star recruits will still get their offers, but the three-star high school athlete who needs time to grow is increasingly being bypassed in favor of 5th-year seniors or experienced underclassmen from the transfer portal.
Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Walshok LLP
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Source: Gemini.
 
For those pooh poohing or not using AI, see comments from the CEO of Nvidia, which is the largest company, by capitalization, in the world. Skim the bold parts.

"... the rules of everyday survival are changing, and fast.

To explain, Huang points to the automobile. Early cars were lethal, speeding into cities built for horses. Children played in the streets, and pedestrians crossed wherever they liked. The technology arrived instantly; the rules for surviving it took decades to catch up. Eventually, towns built sidewalks, traffic lights, and created driving tests. Play moved off the asphalt, because the cost of leaving it there was measured in body bags.

AI is forcing that exact same correction, only on a hyper-compressed timeline. Going forward, the wreckage won’t be measured in broken bones, but in broken dreams and erased bank accounts.

We are witnessing the birth of America’s next underclass: a permanent, tech-illiterate sub-stratosphere of the workforce. The defining divide of the next decade won’t be a simple gradient of rich versus poor, but a sort of two-tier caste system separating those who can command AI from those who cannot.

Picture the office version of this digital Darwinism. Everyone on the floor uses AI to summarize reports, audit spreadsheets, and draft the mind-numbing proposals nobody actually wants to write. One worker refuses. He does it all by hand, fiercely proud of his “honest, human effort.” By lunch, he is hopelessly behind. His colleagues have produced triple his output, automated their follow-ups, and taken an extra 20 minutes for coffee.

In this new reality, stubbornness is a professional suicide pact. The market, one fears, is about to punish the holdouts with a savagery we haven’t seen since the Industrial Revolution.

Huang’s prescription is simple: “Just go engage it.” Today, an ordinary person with zero coding knowledge can build a website, dissect a dense legal contract, or project a corporate budget. Skills once locked behind a $100,000 university degree are suddenly available to anyone who knows how to type a coherent sentence.

This shift will soon turn the traditional corporate ladder into a sheer cliff. The baseline assumption of modern employment is shifting to imply that any capable adult can steer these models. If you think avoiding AI makes you a noble purist, just wait until you find out your salary is being eclipsed by a middle schooler who treats ChatGPT like a calculator.

History has never been kind to the nostalgic. The blacksmith who laughed at the Model T didn’t slow down Henry Ford’s assembly line. The travel agent who mocked the internet didn’t stop Expedia. The future keeps its appointments, regardless of who refuses to show up.

This is why Huang’s warnings carry such weight. He is describing a permanent realignment of human value. A new underclass is emerging, defined not by what people earn, but by what they are no longer capable of doing. For millions of Americans, AI remains a curiosity — something to play with for five minutes and mock when it hallucinates a fact.

The tools improve at a punishing, exponential pace. Work that recently required a specialist and a six-figure salary now requires one person and a clear request. The walls around professional expertise are being demolished in real-time.

This leverage cuts both ways. A corner bodega can now deploy data analytics that used to require a multinational infrastructure. A scrappy startup can launch with a solo founder and a suite of algorithms rather than a staff of 40. Power no longer tracks the size of the building you walk into each morning, but rather the ability to direct the machine.

I’m no fan of our new algorithm overlords either, but the folks leveraging AI aren’t waiting for some futuristic sci-fi timeline. They work fast, gain more influence by the day, and leave the purists holding an empty bag. The ones who wait will likely watch the trapdoor close beneath them, wondering how the rest of the world left them behind.

Jensen Huang grew up playing in the streets before the cars took over. Now the robots are here. They are about to ruthlessly divide American society into two distinct groups: those who give the digital orders, and those who are made entirely obsolete by them.


https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5942757-ai-demands-new-social-norms/
 
mthoopsfan said:
For those pooh poohing or not using AI, see comments from the CEO of Nvidia, which is the largest company, by capitalization, in the world. Skim the bold parts.

"... the rules of everyday survival are changing, and fast.

To explain, Huang points to the automobile. Early cars were lethal, speeding into cities built for horses. Children played in the streets, and pedestrians crossed wherever they liked. The technology arrived instantly; the rules for surviving it took decades to catch up. Eventually, towns built sidewalks, traffic lights, and created driving tests. Play moved off the asphalt, because the cost of leaving it there was measured in body bags.

AI is forcing that exact same correction, only on a hyper-compressed timeline. Going forward, the wreckage won’t be measured in broken bones, but in broken dreams and erased bank accounts.

We are witnessing the birth of America’s next underclass: a permanent, tech-illiterate sub-stratosphere of the workforce. The defining divide of the next decade won’t be a simple gradient of rich versus poor, but a sort of two-tier caste system separating those who can command AI from those who cannot.

Picture the office version of this digital Darwinism. Everyone on the floor uses AI to summarize reports, audit spreadsheets, and draft the mind-numbing proposals nobody actually wants to write. One worker refuses. He does it all by hand, fiercely proud of his “honest, human effort.” By lunch, he is hopelessly behind. His colleagues have produced triple his output, automated their follow-ups, and taken an extra 20 minutes for coffee.

In this new reality, stubbornness is a professional suicide pact. The market, one fears, is about to punish the holdouts with a savagery we haven’t seen since the Industrial Revolution.

Huang’s prescription is simple: “Just go engage it.” Today, an ordinary person with zero coding knowledge can build a website, dissect a dense legal contract, or project a corporate budget. Skills once locked behind a $100,000 university degree are suddenly available to anyone who knows how to type a coherent sentence.

This shift will soon turn the traditional corporate ladder into a sheer cliff. The baseline assumption of modern employment is shifting to imply that any capable adult can steer these models. If you think avoiding AI makes you a noble purist, just wait until you find out your salary is being eclipsed by a middle schooler who treats ChatGPT like a calculator.

History has never been kind to the nostalgic. The blacksmith who laughed at the Model T didn’t slow down Henry Ford’s assembly line. The travel agent who mocked the internet didn’t stop Expedia. The future keeps its appointments, regardless of who refuses to show up.

This is why Huang’s warnings carry such weight. He is describing a permanent realignment of human value. A new underclass is emerging, defined not by what people earn, but by what they are no longer capable of doing. For millions of Americans, AI remains a curiosity — something to play with for five minutes and mock when it hallucinates a fact.

The tools improve at a punishing, exponential pace. Work that recently required a specialist and a six-figure salary now requires one person and a clear request. The walls around professional expertise are being demolished in real-time.

This leverage cuts both ways. A corner bodega can now deploy data analytics that used to require a multinational infrastructure. A scrappy startup can launch with a solo founder and a suite of algorithms rather than a staff of 40. Power no longer tracks the size of the building you walk into each morning, but rather the ability to direct the machine.

I’m no fan of our new algorithm overlords either, but the folks leveraging AI aren’t waiting for some futuristic sci-fi timeline. They work fast, gain more influence by the day, and leave the purists holding an empty bag. The ones who wait will likely watch the trapdoor close beneath them, wondering how the rest of the world left them behind.

Jensen Huang grew up playing in the streets before the cars took over. Now the robots are here. They are about to ruthlessly divide American society into two distinct groups: those who give the digital orders, and those who are made entirely obsolete by them.


https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5942757-ai-demands-new-social-norms/
Click to expand...
AI is the devil.

Revelations 15
The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
 
alabamagrizzly said:
Mentally I'm 15. Unfortunately my physical body disagrees.
Click to expand...
When I retired, I thought I'd try some physical work. I tried sacking potatoes, 50# sacks. 40+ years of desk work, studying, charting, where I lifted only the weight of a pencil or hypodermic syringe left me speechless, and pooped. I only lasted two hours. Mentally I could do anything, but physically...

I came across some good quotes on aging. They were all good, but I couldn't pick just one. Here's the link:
www.smartliving365.com

50 Of The Best Positive Aging Quotes I Could Find

SMART Living 365 is dedicated to exploring ideas and information that lead to a happier, more peaceful, and content life--365!
www.smartliving365.com www.smartliving365.com
 
mthoopsfan said:
For those pooh poohing or not using AI, see comments from the CEO of Nvidia, which is the largest company, by capitalization, in the world. Skim the bold parts.

"... the rules of everyday survival are changing, and fast.

To explain, Huang points to the automobile. Early cars were lethal, speeding into cities built for horses. Children played in the streets, and pedestrians crossed wherever they liked. The technology arrived instantly; the rules for surviving it took decades to catch up. Eventually, towns built sidewalks, traffic lights, and created driving tests. Play moved off the asphalt, because the cost of leaving it there was measured in body bags.

AI is forcing that exact same correction, only on a hyper-compressed timeline. Going forward, the wreckage won’t be measured in broken bones, but in broken dreams and erased bank accounts.

We are witnessing the birth of America’s next underclass: a permanent, tech-illiterate sub-stratosphere of the workforce. The defining divide of the next decade won’t be a simple gradient of rich versus poor, but a sort of two-tier caste system separating those who can command AI from those who cannot.

Picture the office version of this digital Darwinism. Everyone on the floor uses AI to summarize reports, audit spreadsheets, and draft the mind-numbing proposals nobody actually wants to write. One worker refuses. He does it all by hand, fiercely proud of his “honest, human effort.” By lunch, he is hopelessly behind. His colleagues have produced triple his output, automated their follow-ups, and taken an extra 20 minutes for coffee.

In this new reality, stubbornness is a professional suicide pact. The market, one fears, is about to punish the holdouts with a savagery we haven’t seen since the Industrial Revolution.

Huang’s prescription is simple: “Just go engage it.” Today, an ordinary person with zero coding knowledge can build a website, dissect a dense legal contract, or project a corporate budget. Skills once locked behind a $100,000 university degree are suddenly available to anyone who knows how to type a coherent sentence.

This shift will soon turn the traditional corporate ladder into a sheer cliff. The baseline assumption of modern employment is shifting to imply that any capable adult can steer these models. If you think avoiding AI makes you a noble purist, just wait until you find out your salary is being eclipsed by a middle schooler who treats ChatGPT like a calculator.

History has never been kind to the nostalgic. The blacksmith who laughed at the Model T didn’t slow down Henry Ford’s assembly line. The travel agent who mocked the internet didn’t stop Expedia. The future keeps its appointments, regardless of who refuses to show up.

This is why Huang’s warnings carry such weight. He is describing a permanent realignment of human value. A new underclass is emerging, defined not by what people earn, but by what they are no longer capable of doing. For millions of Americans, AI remains a curiosity — something to play with for five minutes and mock when it hallucinates a fact.

The tools improve at a punishing, exponential pace. Work that recently required a specialist and a six-figure salary now requires one person and a clear request. The walls around professional expertise are being demolished in real-time.

This leverage cuts both ways. A corner bodega can now deploy data analytics that used to require a multinational infrastructure. A scrappy startup can launch with a solo founder and a suite of algorithms rather than a staff of 40. Power no longer tracks the size of the building you walk into each morning, but rather the ability to direct the machine.

I’m no fan of our new algorithm overlords either, but the folks leveraging AI aren’t waiting for some futuristic sci-fi timeline. They work fast, gain more influence by the day, and leave the purists holding an empty bag. The ones who wait will likely watch the trapdoor close beneath them, wondering how the rest of the world left them behind.

Jensen Huang grew up playing in the streets before the cars took over. Now the robots are here. They are about to ruthlessly divide American society into two distinct groups: those who give the digital orders, and those who are made entirely obsolete by them.


https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5942757-ai-demands-new-social-norms/
Click to expand...
jensen huang et al are doing their best to create a fomo situation (fear-of-missing-out) by telling their little stories of how ai will divide society into the 'haves' and 'have nots', based on a person's level of ai use. but, but, but... the world isn't black and white, and just like with the myriad of other technologies that have emerged over the last century or so, people are going to use ai on a need-be basis, and will adapt to it just fine. not everything benefits from ai, though. is it going to make my interactions with other people more fun? will it change the way i surf? nah.
 
argh! said:
jensen huang et al are doing their best to create a fomo situation (fear-of-missing-out) by telling their little stories of how ai will divide society into the 'haves' and 'have nots', based on a person's level of ai use. but, but, but... the world isn't black and white, and just like with the myriad of other technologies that have emerged over the last century or so, people are going to use ai on a need-be basis, and will adapt to it just fine. not everything benefits from ai, though. is it going to make my interactions with other people more fun? will it change the way i surf? nah.
Click to expand...
Were you skeptical of computers, internet and cell phones too?
 
Last edited:
I see what pushed you into surfing.

“
how important is ai in university research


+5



AI is incredibly important in university research, functioning as a fundamental tool that accelerates and transforms the entire academic process. It allows researchers to handle massive datasets in seconds, summarize vast amounts of literature, and uncover complex patterns that human analysis alone might miss.[1, 2]
Key areas where AI drives university research:
  • Data Analysis & Processing: AI algorithms process and analyze complex data in fields like genomics, astronomy, and climate science, turning months of manual work into hours.
  • Literature Reviews: Generative AI tools quickly scan, summarize, and identify key themes across extensive academic databases.
  • Writing & Editing: AI assists with drafting, improving syntax, translating languages, and refining citations. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
However, the technology requires ethical use. Most institutions emphasize that AI must enhance—not replace—human judgment, meaning researchers must verify AI outputs to avoid fabrications. AI cannot be credited as an author in academic publications.” AI
 
mthoopsfan said:
Were you skeptical of computers, internet and cell phones too?
Click to expand...
i'm not skeptical of ai, just some of the promises that have been made about it by those who are also selling it. as for the internet and computers, i was using them in the early 80's, when you still had to use computer prompts and the like to get to files, etc... hell, i remember buying windows 2.0 in what must've been the 80's. early macs were way better, and i wrote a novel using one in the mid 80's, with what i think was the first commercially produced computer that utilized a mouse. i even used one of the first examples of 'live streaming' in the early 1990s, while at cambridge. it was developed by the university of cambridge computer laboratory, and it's use was to check how full the lab's coffee pot was, because lab members got tired of walking to the break room only to find an empty coffee pot. as a scientist, i obviously would not have had any success unless i adopted new technologies soon after they emerged. i don't reject technology at all, and even just used gemni to make an 'app' that helps me review mandarin vocabulary while i take walks. it's not complicated, it just goes through my saved google translate vocabulary and gives the correct pronunciation of a word, followed 10 seconds later by the english translation; then it does it a second time but without the english translation. obviously that's just piddly stuff.

we've both been around the block a few times, greenie, and have seen the coming and going of various technologies that were 'the next big thing', only to flame out a few years later. my problem with ai is more how it's advertised - a lot of it's bigger proponents seem to overlook the value of other aspects of existence. ai isn't going to do my workout for me, or make the waitress at my favorite breakfast place more friendly. i do think some people believe it replaces basics like reading books (they just want the synopsis), but i get some satisfaction and value out of challenging my own ability to think and learn, and to be creative. also, to experience new things, something you obviously value based on your recent trips to various spots around the world.
 
Depending on which AI you are using, you have to be very careful. Some of them outright lie. I know last year I was looking up scores for Big Sky teams and it gave me erroneous results on several different occasions.
 
AI and Crypto will be bigger than the internet and cell phones combined. In 5 years everything will be tokenized on chain. Insurance, stock market, derivatives, identity, real estate, contracts etc.

Hop on or get left behind
 
Da Boyz Mom said:
Depending on which AI you are using, you have to be very careful. Some of them outright lie. I know last year I was looking up scores for Big Sky teams and it gave me erroneous results on several different occasions.
Click to expand...
So true. And you can definitely "convince" certain models based on prompts. I think I can get Gemini to agree with me that the Griz FB team would likely win the HS state soccer tournament within four prompts.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Source: Gemini.
Click to expand...
While they have never been AGAINST it, my understanding is that the Griz have not been a program that into early enrollees the way that some other FCS programs are (and basically every FBS program). They'll take them when they have to, but they don't encourage it.

This rule drastically changes the value of a kid graduating early and being there in January for all of winter lifting and spring ball. They are getting an additional 6-7 months of physical and skill development on their 5 year clock that allows them to be ready sooner. They are going to need to reevaluate that thinking rather quickly. Not to mention no more waivers to get extra years tacked on for various reasons.
 
RP24 said:
While they have never been AGAINST it, my understanding is that the Griz have not been a program that into early enrollees the way that some other FCS programs are (and basically every FBS program). They'll take them when they have to, but they don't encourage it.

This rule drastically changes the value of a kid graduating early and being there in January for all of winter lifting and spring ball. They are getting an additional 6-7 months of physical and skill development on their 5 year clock that allows them to be ready sooner. They are going to need to reevaluate that thinking rather quickly. Not to mention no more waivers to get extra years tacked on for various reasons.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how these measurements work, but why would a recruit coming in January make any difference? He gets 5 seasons. Fall 1 through fall 5. I assume that isn't measured Aug 1 of year 1 to Dec. 31/Jan 10 of year 5? January enrollment in year 1 wouldn't impact that, would it? Feel free to explain this to me. I don't pretend to understand this. Thx.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
So true. And you can definitely "convince" certain models based on prompts. I think I can get Gemini to agree with me that the Griz FB team would likely win the HS state soccer tournament within four prompts.
Click to expand...
Okay, go for it. Try. I will bet against you. I agree that one has to be careful with prompts.
 
argh! said:
i'm not skeptical of ai, just some of the promises that have been made about it by those who are also selling it. as for the internet and computers, i was using them in the early 80's, when you still had to use computer prompts and the like to get to files, etc... hell, i remember buying windows 2.0 in what must've been the 80's. early macs were way better, and i wrote a novel using one in the mid 80's, with what i think was the first commercially produced computer that utilized a mouse. i even used one of the first examples of 'live streaming' in the early 1990s, while at cambridge. it was developed by the university of cambridge computer laboratory, and it's use was to check how full the lab's coffee pot was, because lab members got tired of walking to the break room only to find an empty coffee pot. as a scientist, i obviously would not have had any success unless i adopted new technologies soon after they emerged. i don't reject technology at all, and even just used gemni to make an 'app' that helps me review mandarin vocabulary while i take walks. it's not complicated, it just goes through my saved google translate vocabulary and gives the correct pronunciation of a word, followed 10 seconds later by the english translation; then it does it a second time but without the english translation. obviously that's just piddly stuff.

we've both been around the block a few times, greenie, and have seen the coming and going of various technologies that were 'the next big thing', only to flame out a few years later. my problem with ai is more how it's advertised - a lot of it's bigger proponents seem to overlook the value of other aspects of existence. ai isn't going to do my workout for me, or make the waitress at my favorite breakfast place more friendly. i do think some people believe it replaces basics like reading books (they just want the synopsis), but i get some satisfaction and value out of challenging my own ability to think and learn, and to be creative. also, to experience new things, something you obviously value based on your recent trips to various spots around the world.
Click to expand...
Okay, fine. I first used a computer in fall of 1968. And took 2 computer courses during college. And still know nothing about them. Ha. Yes, AI doesn't do some of the things you mentioned in your 2 posts, but neither does any technology, including computers and cell phones.

What next big thing technologies, like really big things, didn't pan out?

I'm totally convinced that AI is incredibly huge and useful, even if it can't or won't do everything some people say. It's truly amazing for the smaller things I use it for. Like researching, summarizing and writing. It's incredibly useful in many legal things. It even comes up with some legal ideas that had never occurred to me. It's far more accurate than virtually anything else, even though it is far from perfect. And it is incredibly fast. I don't use it for things like who's the best football team or anything like that, or anything that is an opinion. At this point, those uses would be silly.

"When were computers first used at dartmouth


The introduction of computing at Dartmouth unfolded in a few distinct, history-making milestones:

1. The Pre-Electronic Milestone (1940)​

The very first intersection of Dartmouth and digital computing occurred in September 1940 in McNutt Hall. Research mathematician George Stibitz (working with Bell Telephone Laboratories) used a standard telephone line and a teletype console on campus to remotely access an automatic calculator mainframe in New York City. This was the world's first demonstration of remote access computing.

The Koppelman Group+ 1

2.​

Dartmouth acquired its first physical, on-campus computer in 1959—a rudimentary, desk-sized LGP-30. It was a magnetic-drum memory machine that gave a small group of undergraduate students and faculty their very first hands-on programming experience.

Wikipedia+ 1

3. The Digital Revolution (1964)​


Dartmouth

The watershed year for Dartmouth computing was 1964. Professors John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz [I took courses, some math, from both of them]—believing that exposure to computing was as essential to a liberal arts education as using the library—secured a National Science Foundation grant to bring a massive General Electric GE-225 mainframe to campus.

Dartmouth

Working with a team of brilliant undergraduate "sysprogs" (systems programmers) in the basement of College Hall (now Collis), they created the Dartmouth Time-Sharing System (DTSS) and the BASIC programming language. At 4:00 AM on May 1, 1964, the system successfully ran its first simultaneous programs, effectively inventing accessible, personal computing and democratizing technology for students of all disciplines.

Dartmouth"

Gemini.

Basic from Dartmouth was what Gates used to build Microsoft.

"
In fact, BASIC is the literal foundation upon which Microsoft was built.

The evolution from Dartmouth BASIC to the software empire we know today is one of the most famous straight lines in tech history. Here is how it happened:

The Missing Link: Altair BASIC (1975)​

In January 1975, the MITS Altair 8800 appeared on the cover of Popular Electronics, sparking the microcomputer revolution. However, the machine shipped without software or an accessible operating system.

Seeing an opportunity, Bill Gates and Paul Allen realized that if they could adapt the easy-to-use BASIC language to run on the Altair's tiny Intel 8080 microprocessor, they would have a viable commercial product. Working around the clock at Harvard, they wrote an interpreter.

When they successfully loaded their code into the Altair via paper tape, it worked perfectly. That interpreter, Altair BASIC, became the very first product of a brand-new company they initially called "Micro-Soft."

The Separation from Dartmouth's Vision​

While Gates and Allen used the core syntax, logic, and user-friendly spirit of Dartmouth BASIC, their commercial versions began to diverge structurally:

  • The Business Model: Professors Kemeny and Kurtz intentionally kept Dartmouth BASIC in the public domain, wanting it to be a free educational tool for the world. Gates took the opposite approach, famously writing an "Open Letter to Hobbyists" in 1976, demanding that software developers be paid for their intellectual property.
  • Technical Adapation: Microsoft had to strip down Dartmouth's version to fit into incredibly tight memory constraints (initially just 4 KB of RAM).

The Evolution into Windows (GW-BASIC & Visual Basic)​

Microsoft didn't just use BASIC to get started; they rode it for decades. As personal computers grew, Microsoft evolved the language through several massive iterations:

  • MBASIC & IBM BASIC (Late 1970s/1980s): Microsoft licensed versions of BASIC to nearly every early computer manufacturer, including Apple, Commodore, and eventually IBM for the original IBM PC.
  • GW-BASIC & QBasic (1980s/1990s): This became bundled directly with MS-DOS. For a generation of Gen-X and Millennial programmers, this was their introduction to coding.
  • Visual Basic (1991): This was a massive paradigm shift. Microsoft transformed BASIC into a drag-and-drop, graphical user interface (GUI) tool. It allowed developers to rapidly build full-fledged Windows applications visually, handling the backend code automatically.
  • VB.NET (2002–Present): Microsoft fully integrated the language into their modern object-oriented .NETframework, ensuring it lived on into the enterprise software era.
Without Kemeny and Kurtz's breakthrough in Hanover, the software landscape—and Microsoft itself—would have looked entirely different." Gemini.
 
mthoopsfan said:
I don't understand how these measurements work, but why would a recruit coming in January make any difference? He gets 5 seasons. Fall 1 through fall 5. I assume that isn't measured Aug 1 of year 1 to Dec. 31/Jan 10 of year 5? January enrollment in year 1 wouldn't impact that, would it? Feel free to explain this to me. I don't pretend to understand this. Thx.
Click to expand...
It does not impact as far as seasons played, absolutely correct. But arriving in January is an offseason of college development before your freshman season in order to be more physically and mentally ready to play. That 5 season hard cap simply makes it more valuable to your program and the development of your young players to get them in the building sooner and on the field sooner.

Even if they don't see the field until their 2nd year, that's TWO whole off seasons of development before they play, instead of one, while keeping the same eligibility. Theoretically, your freshman who come in early in January are during their freshman football season in the Fall actually at a SOPH level as far as physical development and skill set.....In their Soph season they are at a JUNIOR level, and so on, because they have that extra offseason work they wouldn't have gotten at home.

Two kids in the same class, one arrives in Jan and one in June/July, the kid in January is essentially a year ahead with development because they have been adding size and strength in a real program with real nutrition since January as well as getting to participate in spring ball which is invaluable. The kid who gets their in summer, it's all brand new, he's been working out at home not in a college program, and Fall practice starts in a few weeks. Rarely, especially at this level, is that kid prepared to help out. And when the season arrives, the early enrollee is already prepared whether they play or not that first year.

There are many FBS schools that require you to get there in January, or you aren't able to commit to the offer and they'll get someone else (besides those high 4* and the 5*s of course).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top