Age based rule to be implemented

[HelenaHandBasket]

I think we're on the same page. I agree, they can RECRUIT as many as they want. When I said it will negatively affect HS recruiting, I should have said it will negatively affect HS signings.

I still don't think that is accurate. I think it has more impact on that 3rd year 5th string TE than a HS recruit and signing.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

He's hopefully a question for discussion that will be non-argumentative. Ha.

With every player having 5 years to play, how will they be classified now? There's no more red shirt status before a grade level, will they all just be freshman sophomore, junior, senior, graduate? Or go even simpler and label them first through fifth year?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

He's hopefully a question for discussion that will be non-argumentative. Ha.

With every player having 5 years to play, how will they be classified now? There's no more red shirt status before a grade level, will they all just be freshman sophomore, junior, senior, graduate? Or go even simpler and label them first through fifth year?

It will be something dumb like "super senior".

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

I still don't think that is accurate. I think it has more impact on that 3rd year 5th string TE than a HS recruit and signing.

And I think players who get injured aren't necessarily going to be given much if any any time to rehab. Not when you can go get another guy who can play right now.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

It doesn't really matter if a kid redshirted or not, a team plans a roster assuming 5 years. That doesn't change.

I think (hope) you, @Da Boyz Mom , and I can agree on the following:

1. In sports where redshirting is not the norm, the reduced roster turnover under new rule will decrease HS (or portal) signings. (i.e., if a true senior who graduated in 2024 got to play in 2025, it would have displaced a HS signing, assuming that's who got his "spot"). And that doesn't "go away" or "equal out" over time. That's permanent.

2. Under the new rule that disallows redshirting, incoming freshmen will be increasingly expected to contribute, where before, they were likely going to be redshirted. Therefore, coaches will likely increasingly look to the portal to fill open roster spots rather than HS seniors who would immediately be on the clock in the fall.

PS: I think it definitely matters for HS signings that RS won't be allowed anymore.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I still don't think that is accurate. I think it has more impact on that 3rd year 5th string TE than a HS recruit and signing.

Hey, maybe. That's a thought. Under my assessment, I made the assumption that a more senior player was more desirable, which we know isn't always the case. Hell, true freshmen play all the time (see what I did ).

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I think (hope) you, @Da Boyz Mom , and I can agree on the following:

1. In sports where redshirting is not the norm, the reduced roster turnover under new rule will decrease HS (or portal) signings. (i.e., if a true senior who graduated in 2024 got to play in 2025, it would have displaced a HS signing, assuming that's who got his "spot").

2. Under the new rule that disallows redshirting, incoming freshmen will be increasingly expected to contribute, where before, they were likely going to be redshirted. Therefore, coaches will likely increasingly look to the portal to fill open roster spots rather than HS seniors who would immediately be on the clock in the fall.

I don't agree that there will be reduced roster turnover. I also don't agree with point 2, because incoming classes already usually run around 20 or more kids and so I don't think it increases the expectation. You still would have the large balance returning.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

Hey, maybe. That's a thought. Under my assessment, I made the assumption that a more senior player was more desirable, which we know isn't always the case. Hell, true freshmen play all the time (see what I did ).

Really it just comes down to who is the better player at any given time. There's not going to be a bunch of fifth year guys that have stuck around for the whole time but still aren't all that great. Can't afford to keep them on the roster anymore. And any freshman phenom will play immediately. Some of these changes have already happened due to the roster cap.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I don't agree that there will be reduced roster turnover. I also don't agree with point 2, because incoming classes already usually run around 20 or more kids and so I don't think it increases the expectation. You still would have the large balance returning.

Interesting. In a sport where redshirting is not the norm, you don't think giving an extra year of eligibility will reduce roster turnover? Can you tell me why you think that?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Really it just comes down to who is the better player at any given time. There's not going to be a bunch of fifth year guys that have stuck around for the whole time but still aren't all that great. Can't afford to keep them on the roster anymore. And any freshman phenom will play immediately. Some of these changes have already happened due to the roster cap.

Totally, and now those phenoms get a fifth year!

 

[mthoopsfan]

Take a nap.

Learn something about football. I have always said you don’t understand the game.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Interesting. In a sport where redshirting is not the norm, you don't think giving an extra year of eligibility will reduce roster turnover? Can you tell me why you think that?

Just normal attrition for whatever reason. You are assuming that players typically use all there eligibility at a single school when the actual number is low. This 5 for 5 won't change roster attrition.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Learn something about football. I have always said you don’t understand the game.

I am planning a Holiday Inn stay for this evening in hopes of being better.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Just normal attrition for whatever reason. You are assuming that players typically use all there eligibility at a single school when the actual number is low. This 5 for 5 won't change roster attrition.

You're saying roster turnover is already driven mostly by transfers, quitting, injuries, and other attrition, not by exhausting eligibility. I'm saying people who previously had to leave because they ran out of eligibility now won't have to.

If you want to say the first list of reasons drives more attrition than exhaustion of eligibility, that's fine. But that doesn't mean those in the second category will have NO effect on roster turnover. Unless attrition from transfers, quitting, etc. increases by the exact same amount, giving athletes another year of eligibility necessarily reduces roster openings to some extent.

Put another way, other sources of attrition don't negate eligibility-driven attrition; they're additive.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

You're saying roster turnover is already driven mostly by transfers, quitting, injuries, and other attrition, not by exhausting eligibility. I'm saying people who previously had to leave because they ran out of eligibility now won't have to.

If you want to say the first list of reasons drives more attrition than exhaustion of eligibility, that's fine. But that doesn't mean those in the second category will have NO effect on roster turnover.

And I am saying that the number who stay 5 full years will be small, pretty much negligible, after the first few seasons. The impact will be much, much, much less than you state.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

And I am saying that the number who stay 5 full years will be small, pretty much negligible, after the first few seasons. The impact will be much, much, much less than you state.

Are you saying that most will choose not to exercise their option to play the fifth year? If so, I just have to disagree.

Or are you saying that they will leave and play elsewhere before playing all 5 years at one school? If that's what you're saying, I think I see where the issue is. If, for example, a player transfers after Year 3 and then plays Years 4 and 5 elsewhere, that's still a fifth-year athlete occupying a Division I roster spot. From the perspective of the system as a whole, the high school recruit still doesn't get that roster spot. Does that make more sense?

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

Are you saying that most will choose not to exercise their option to play the fifth year? If so, I just have to disagree.

Or are you saying that they will leave and play elsewhere before playing all 5 years at one school? If that's what you're saying, I think I see where the issue is. If, for example, a player transfers after Year 3 and then plays Years 4 and 5 elsewhere, that's still a fifth-year athlete occupying a Division I roster spot. From the perspective of the system as a whole, the high school recruit still doesn't get that roster spot. Does that make more sense?

Well many will transfer out to an FBS school as we have seen recently. The best of the remaining will play, and the lowest level will likely get cut.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Are you saying that most will choose not to exercise their option to play the fifth year? If so, I just have to disagree.

Or are you saying that they will leave and play elsewhere before playing all 5 years at one school? If that's what you're saying, I think I see where the issue is. If, for example, a player transfers after Year 3 and then plays Years 4 and 5 elsewhere, that's still a fifth-year athlete occupying a Division I roster spot. From the perspective of the system as a whole, the high school recruit still doesn't get that roster spot. Does that make more sense?

What I am saying is that very few players recruited to a school will play 5 full years at that school. The attrition will still allow schools to recruit high school and get kids from the portal in the future the same way they do now with little to no loss of opportunity. The main impact will be on this very first recruiting class. In theory, if all recruits stayed for a full 5 years you would be correct, but the reality is this is far from the case.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Well many will transfer out to an FBS school as we have seen recently. The best of the remaining will play, and the lowest level will likely get cut.

Is this any change from now, and prior to the new rule?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

What I am saying is that very few players recruited to a school will play 5 full years at that school. The attrition will still allow schools to recruit high school and get kids from the portal in the future the same way they do now with little to no loss of opportunity. The main impact will be on this very first recruiting class. In theory, if all recruits stayed for a full 5 years you would be correct, but the reality is this is far from the case.

I agree that many/most athletes won't spend five years at one school. But why is that the relevant question? If they transfer and play somewhere else, they're still occupying a roster spot that otherwise would be vacant under the old rule.

It seems like you are talking about roster turnover at an individual school. My point has always been about the total number of roster spots available to incoming high school athletes.

As for the long-term impact beyond the first year, that depends on how many athletes actually use the fifth season. If most do, even after transferring, the effect isn't limited to the first class.