• 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!

Who are new heavy's?

MontanaGrizSoccer said:
If for example say the Griz have a roster limit of 85 players, you have 15 seniors this year and recruited/verbally committed 15 players in class of 2027 to replace those seniors. Now these seniors can stay an extra year if they stay no room for the 2027s.
Click to expand...
ElrodGrizzly said:
I don't have specific examples, but it is just mathematically assured that some high school kids will miss out. There are the same number of roster spots, but guys who are already on teams are getting an extra year. For every one that takes their extra year, it is one less roster spot for an incoming freshman.
Click to expand...

The roster limit is 105 after the Designated Student-Athlete Tags expire in 2029 (I think). If a tagged player leaves their tag goes away as well. There are 18 players who will completely exhaust their eligibility after the 2026 season and to this point there are 21 Freshmen who have been recruited for 2027, thus there are currently 3 players more in the recruiting class than we will graduate. We only have two players that will gain a 5th year in 2027 on the roster, Carter Bowen (OL) and Zekiel Seumalo (DL); if either or both want to stay for a 5th year, I don't see our staff getting rid of them as both will likely contribute this season. I almost guarantee we will have at least 3 players enter the portal (possibly even the two who gained the 5th year). I am guessing the 2027 recruits are fine. Our staff has to be very aware of what they have for available roster space.

SoldierGriz said:
If they are not starters or expected to contribute meaningful minutes...why would coaches accept them for a 5th year?

Truth is coaches will bring in the commits...and then see who earns the spots.

Roster cuts can be painful - but required for programs that war neither weak, nor timid.
Click to expand...
I believe in what you are saying completely. These coaching decisions are not new, I had to make them when I was a college coach almost 20 years ago (Ugh). I doubt a player that wouldn't be kept for a 5th year would have made it past their 4th year as a scholarship athlete. There are cases where I feel that some players are eating up a spot on UMs roster, but usually we see them faze out (don't want to mention names for the sake of poking bears). In the past they were able to keep them, but going forward, that won't be likely.
 
oldngrizzly said:
Fatties wear out pretty quick. I would say in 4 quarters we need 12 starters for the o line and maybe as many on the d line. Looking at the roster there appears to be ALOT of recruits just taking up space. Maybe we could send them in and if they don't cut the mustard send them home to momma.
Click to expand...
Uhhhh...what?

I've seen teams rotate a couple spots and play up to 7 different guys on the OL, but 12?! You aren't finding 12 guys capable of starting on the OL at this level, or hardly any level tbh. That's one of the most unrealistic standards I've seen.
 
GrizNut said:
The roster limit is 105 after the Designated Student-Athlete Tags expire in 2029 (I think). If a tagged player leaves their tag goes away as well. There are 18 players who will completely exhaust their eligibility after the 2026 season and to this point there are 21 Freshmen who have been recruited for 2027, thus there are currently 3 players more in the recruiting class than we will graduate. We only have two players that will gain a 5th year in 2027 on the roster, Carter Bowen (OL) and Zekiel Seumalo (DL); if either or both want to stay for a 5th year, I don't see our staff getting rid of them as both will likely contribute this season. I almost guarantee we will have at least 3 players enter the portal (possibly even the two who gained the 5th year). I am guessing the 2027 recruits are fine. Our staff has to be very aware of what they have for available roster space.


I believe in what you are saying completely. These coaching decisions are not new, I had to make them when I was a college coach almost 20 years ago (Ugh). I doubt a player that wouldn't be kept for a 5th year would have made it past their 4th year as a scholarship athlete. There are cases where I feel that some players are eating up a spot on UMs roster, but usually we see them faze out (don't want to mention names for the sake of poking bears). In the past they were able to keep them, but going forward, that won't be likely.
Click to expand...
Sure, but we were not talking specifically just at Montana.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
Sure, but we were not talking specifically just at Montana.
Click to expand...
Well, I am...not trying to be a d!ck...but we are on Egriz and the thread pertains to a question about UMs roster. Any actual examples that came in were related to UMs roster as far as I could tell.

Of course there is the possibility that it could cause trouble with other programs if they had multiple conventional (but not really conventional anymore) 4 year seniors that aquired a 5th season and coaches had recruited in excess of the number of outgoing players they have. I can't see coaches not being able to fix most problems without major issues. However, as stated by someone else, cutting has always been an option. It is sometimes harsh and unfortunate but a part of college athletics.

The 5 to play 5 rule obviously could have caused ripples and each program's situation is probably fairly unique to that program. An example would be Ivy League schools where players don't usually redshirt because they only have 4 years and are only granted additional years on very rare occasions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top