Age based rule to be implemented

[CDAGRIZ]

.

With the new 5 to play 5 there will be less scholarships or roster spaces available but those kids will begin to fall off a year later. I would also assume that this frees up schools to re-recruit 27 kids to replace other 27 kids.

But wouldn’t that just screw the 28 kids? I’m having trouble seeing how less yearly roster turnover doesn’t hurt HS recruiting as a whole in perpetuity. If it was 2 to play 2, HS recruiting would be crazy, if it was 10 to play 10, HS recruiting would be much less common. I guess the total number of spots stays the same, so maybe it works out somehow.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

.

But wouldn’t that just screw the 28 kids? I’m having trouble seeing how less yearly roster turnover doesn’t hurt HS recruiting as a whole in perpetuity.

There will be minimal turnover year 1, but those kids that would have exhausted eligibility will do so year 2.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

There will be minimal turnover year 1, but those kids that would have exhausted eligibility will do so year 2.

And be replaced by the 27 kids who didn’t get the kid the year before? Do you see what I’m saying at least?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

And be replaced by the 27 kids who didn’t get the kid the year before? Do you see what I’m saying at least?

Possible, but the clock starts with enrollment or age 19, so those 27 kids that bounce to 28 may only get 4 years. The first year would be the worst and it will begin to balance out moving forward.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Possible, but the clock starts with enrollment or age 19, so those 27 kids that bounce to 28 may only get 4 years. The first year would be the worst and it will begin to balance out moving forward.

I’m just not seeing a scenario where HS seniors are recruited at the same clip, even after year 1 of implementation. Not sure if you saw my edit before: If it was 10 to play 10, it’s easier to see how it would hurt HS recruiting. If it was 2 to play 2, it’s easy to see how it would help HS recruiting.

Maybe the elimination of Peter Pan cases and medical/waivers will balance out the extra default year? But those are the vast minority of cases across all sports, so I highly doubt it.

In the end, it could help top FCS programs on the margins kind of like the transfer portal can. Might see some would-be FBS talented HS seniors fall to FCS.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I’m just not seeing a scenario where HS seniors are recruited at the same clip, even after year 1 of implementation. Not sure if you saw my edit before: If it was 10 to play 10, it’s easier to see how it would hurt HS recruiting. If it was 2 to play 2, it’s easy to see how it would help HS recruiting.

Maybe the elimination of Peter Pan cases and medical/waivers will balance out the extra default year? But those are the vast minority of cases across all sports, so I highly doubt it.

In the end, it could help top FCS programs on the margins kind of like the transfer portal can. Might see some would-be FBS talented HS seniors fall to FCS.

I didn't say anything about "same clip". I did say year one would be the bloodbath and it would improve from there. But 5 to play 5 isn't much different than 5 to play 4.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I didn't say anything about "same clip". I did say year one would be the bloodbath and it would improve from there. But 5 to play 5 isn't much different than 5 to play 4.

5 to play 5 puts 20% more players on the field potentially, other than the 4 redshirt games for 20%. Seems that it will make playing time harder to get.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

5 to play 5 puts 20% more players on the field potentially, other than the 4 redshirt games for 20%. Seems that it will make playing time harder to get.

Did someone say anything about playing time earlier in the thread?

 

[mthoopsfan]

Did someone say anything about playing time earlier in the thread?

Yes. That’s what I said.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Yes. That’s what I said.

Earlier in the thread or just quoting me and adding it anyway.

 

[ResilientGriz]

17?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I didn't say anything about "same clip". I did say year one would be the bloodbath and it would improve from there. But 5 to play 5 isn't much different than 5 to play 4.

All I’m saying is there is a difference, and it wont just be year one. No team is perfectly distributed, but if one was, the “difference” could be quantified as a permanent 20% reduction in open roster spots versus now. 100 person team with 25 per class (old) versus 20 per class (new). 20 graduate each year versus 25.

25-20=5, 5/25=0.2=20%

I’m just using clean math examples for illustration that the difference won’t just be one year, I know the real world doesn’t have these numbers.