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.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

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.

I actually agree with part of what you're saying. I also think the players most immediately affected may be those who have been on a roster for 2-3 years without cracking the rotation.

Where I think we still disagree is whether that effect stops there.

If those players leave, the vast majority don't just disappear from college football. Many will transfer down and occupy roster spots elsewhere. Likewise, if a productive fifth-year player transfers instead of graduating, he's still occupying a roster spot that would have opened under the old rule.

So, I think it's both: the first people squeezed may be existing college players, but that pressure then works its way through the system. Eventually, some of those roster spots that would have gone to incoming high school recruits are instead occupied by fifth-year players.

As for the magnitude, I think we may just disagree. If you read my thoughts on this, I've not argued that the effect will be catastrophic or that it destroys HS recruiting. Never asserted "bloodbath", either, lol. My point is just that there will be an effect, and I don't think that effect ends after Year 1 or is limited to players already in college. If the average athlete plays even a little longer because of the extra year of eligibility, there will be fewer annual openings for new high school recruits than there otherwise would have been. That's how the arithmetic works.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I actually agree with part of what you're saying. I also think the players most immediately affected may be those who have been on a roster for 2-3 years without cracking the rotation.

Where I think we still disagree is whether that effect stops there.

If those players leave, the vast majority don't just disappear from college football. Many will transfer down and occupy roster spots elsewhere. Likewise, if a productive fifth-year player transfers instead of graduating, he's still occupying a roster spot that would have opened under the old rule.

So, I think it's both: the first people squeezed may be existing college players, but that pressure then works its way through the system. Eventually, some of those roster spots that would have gone to incoming high school recruits are instead occupied by fifth-year players.

As for the magnitude, I think we may just disagree. If you read my thoughts on this, I've not argued that the effect will be catastrophic or that it destroys HS recruiting. Never asserted "bloodbath", either, lol. My point is just that there will be an effect, and I don't think that effect ends after Year 1 or is limited to players already in college. If the average athlete plays even a little longer because of the extra year of eligibility, there will be fewer annual openings for new high school recruits than there otherwise would have been. That's how the arithmetic works.

Like I noted previously, in theory I agree, but I see the reality being not much different after the first couple years.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I would like to add that currently athletes are getting extra seasons for JC years or non-NCAA years and for a multitude of other reasons. With the new rule that states the 5 year clock starts at age 19, it probably negates this type of player which would open spots.

 

[mthoopsfan]

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.

Yes, but players still playing their last year are almost always on the two-deep. And, I assume they'd still be on the two-deep the next year if they stayed.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I would like to add that currently athletes are getting extra seasons for JC years or non-NCAA years and for a multitude of other reasons. With the new rule that states the 5 year clock starts at age 19, it probably negates this type of player which would open spots.

True, but this new JC, etc. thing just started. But yes, it should go away.

 

[mthoopsfan]

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

I don't think players who are cut necessarily trickle down somewhere else. Many in the Portal never find a new home, and many are in the Portal because they have been cut.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I don't think players who are cut necessarily trickle down somewhere else. Many in the Portal never find a new home, and many are in the Portal because they have been cut.

I agree with this.

 

[mthoopsfan]

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

I didn't say that little piece was wrong. I said much of what you were saying big picture was wrong.

 

[SACCAT66]

I actually agree with part of what you're saying. I also think the players most immediately affected may be those who have been on a roster for 2-3 years without cracking the rotation.

Where I think we still disagree is whether that effect stops there.

If those players leave, the vast majority don't just disappear from college football. Many will transfer down and occupy roster spots elsewhere. Likewise, if a productive fifth-year player transfers instead of graduating, he's still occupying a roster spot that would have opened under the old rule.

So, I think it's both: the first people squeezed may be existing college players, but that pressure then works its way through the system. Eventually, some of those roster spots that would have gone to incoming high school recruits are instead occupied by fifth-year players.

As for the magnitude, I think we may just disagree. If you read my thoughts on this, I've not argued that the effect will be catastrophic or that it destroys HS recruiting. Never asserted "bloodbath", either, lol. My point is just that there will be an effect, and I don't think that effect ends after Year 1 or is limited to players already in college. If the average athlete plays even a little longer because of the extra year of eligibility, there will be fewer annual openings for new high school recruits than there otherwise would have been. That's how the arithmetic works.

So it goes from 5 years to play 4, to 5 years to play 5... I get your point on High School recruiting, but I think it will actually benefit the G6, and FCS. There is even more incentive for them to come to one of those levels, and play right away, as you will get an extra year at an FBS if you transfer up? (I also, didn't read every post, so you may have already covered this.) I agree with the other poster, that you will see more players leave after year 2-3 if they aren't playing. over 1,000 FBS players entered the Portal last year, and never found a team.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I don't think players who are cut necessarily trickle down somewhere else. Many in the Portal never find a new home, and many are in the Portal because they have been cut.

I think the portal has become a substitution for retirement in a LOT of cases, so I'm not sure we can look at the number of players in the portal as a representation of viable players, if that makes sense. Lot of "fluff" in there, lol.

 

[mthoopsfan]

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.

But it will give many players and good players an extra year, and that wlll crowd out other and younger players. That's one of the main points. I assume you mean roster attrition for players that still have eligibility?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

So it goes from 5 years to play 4, to 5 years to play 5... I get your point on High School recruiting, but I think it will actually benefit the G6, and FCS. There is even more incentive for them to come to one of those levels, and play right away, as you will get an extra year at an FBS if you transfer up? (I also, didn't read every post, so you may have already covered this.) I agree with the other poster, that you will see more players leave after year 2-3 if they aren't playing. over 1,000 FBS players entered the Portal last year, and never found a team.

Yeah, I talked about the theory of the trickle down. Also, see my post about the portal being a proxy for flat-out retirement.

 

[mthoopsfan]

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.

And I don't agree with you. At least in a 5-year period, as opposed to 6 or 7 (some covid-induced), most players stay for 5 unless they are cut or are not getting on the field after say 2/3 years.