Age based rule to be implemented

[mthoopsfan]

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.

It doesn't matter what school the player plays at. They still take up a slot, a scholarship and playing time in the football system. It matters whether and how many players take advantage of the new 5th year. We disagree on that point. I think alot will take advantage of the 5th year, and also believe fewer will redshirt (which really doesn't exist). Every play that played 4 or less to redshirt for play more that year, and then stay for 4 more years. Some players who the coaches believe will benefit from a redshirt year, won't redshirt because it doesn't exist. The only think keeping a player off the field as a frosh will be not good enough to be on the depth chart, or getting hurt. That's why players are asking and getting some many additional years now. They want to play more.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

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

Yeah that was my point. Which you said was wrong.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

It doesn't matter what school the player plays at. They still take up a slot, a scholarship and playing time in the football system. It matters whether and how many players take advantage of the new 5th year. We disagree on that point. I think alot will take advantage of the 5th year, and also believe fewer will redshirt (which really doesn't exist). Every play that played 4 or less to redshirt for play more that year, and then stay for 4 more years. Some players who the coaches believe will benefit from a redshirt year, won't redshirt because it doesn't exist. The only think keeping a player off the field as a frosh will be not good enough to be on the depth chart, or getting hurt. That's why players are asking and getting some many additional years now. They want to play more.

I don't really disagree with this except that The players themselves won't choose to play a fifth year unless the coaches want them to. The best players will play a fifth year, the lesser ones will not because they will be dropped for someone who is younger and better.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I don't really disagree with this except that The players themselves won't choose to play a fifth year unless the coaches want them to. The best players will play a fifth year, the lesser ones will not because they will be dropped for someone who is younger and better.

But most will likely find another school. A home in the system as a whole. That still occupies a roster spot that would have been available to a HS recruit under the new rule.

The only way the new rule has no effect on the total number of roster openings for incoming high school recruits is if either (a) no athletes use the fifth year, or (b) every additional fifth-year athlete is offset by an additional departure from the sport for some other reason. (assuming roster limits remain the same, of course)

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

But most will likely find another school. A home in the system as a whole. That still occupies a roster spot that would have been available to a HS recruit under the new rule.

The only way the new rule has no effect on the total number of roster openings for incoming high school recruits is if either (a) no athletes use the fifth year, or (b) every additional fifth-year athlete is offset by an additional departure for some other reason. (assuming roster limits remain the same, of course)

Is it really an issue though? Those that are effectively cut just trickle down to somewhere else. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. We shall see

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Is it really an issue though? Those that are effectively cut just trickle down to somewhere else. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. We shall see

Maybe it's not really an issue, but that's not what the discussion was about. I thought people were suggesting that it won't affect the number of opportunities for incoming HS players, and if it did, only in year one. That's not the case.

As for the trickle-down dynamic, I think I posted a couple pages ago that this could actually work to our benefit on a program level (if I didn't post that, I meant to, lol).

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

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.

A transfer after the rule would be no different than a transfer prior when it comes to roster management. I still don't think even college football wide it will impact high school recruits far below he level you believe, it will be more impactful to the guy that has been on a roster 2 or 3 seasons without cracking the rotation.