Age based rule to be implemented

[CDAGRIZ]

What you are missing is that there will be a bunch of new 5th year players available, and more as time goes on because players won't redshirt. Thus, more good frosh will be playing. So, those two things will be a double negative whammy for high school recruits, as well as older marginal players.

There is only so much playing time in the system. There are only so many scholarships. There now will be more older, seasoned players playing and taking up playing time and scholarships. Every good 4th year player is now eligible to play a 5th year. Every good frosh is now available and will add to the number of frosh playing. The only offsets are 5th years who have gotten hurt or who decided not to play a 5th year. Those who redshirt already stay for a 5th year, so why wouldn't they play their frosh year and stay for a 5th year?

The forecast/predicting of rosters will now change because of what I said in my first paragraph.

Yes. I think it all boils down to one question: Does the average amount of time athletes occupy roster spots in the college sports system increase now that they can play 5 years?

If yes, annual turnover falls and vacancies decrease.
If no, annual turnover and vacancies remain the same.

I would think it's a safe assumption that, on average, in the whole of college sports, the average time players play would increase if the new default became 5 years instead of 4.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

OK, now that's changing the discussion. I never said HS recruiting disappears, man. I've only said there will be fewer annual opportunities for HS seniors than there otherwise would have been. Those are different things.

You say, "but when you have a roster of 100, is having 20-25 freshman an issue?" That's exactly what's in dispute, lol. The question is, "Will teams still carry as many freshmen?"

I don't disagree that the first players squeezed may be guys 65-75 on the roster. In fact, I think that's probably right. My point is simply that those players don't disappear from the system. Many transfer to another school, where they now compete for another roster spot. So, while the immediate effect may fall on existing college players, I think the downstream effect still reaches high school recruiting. What I never said once is that any school will get rid of HS recruiting.

I misspoke, I didn't mean to say anything about disappearing, but the impact on high school recruits will be minimal. Schools will still have approximately the same number of high school recruits on the roster on average in 2-3 years as they do now. Most these 5 year guys will either stay and guys behind him will leave or go to a place they can play and not be #4 or 5 on the depth chart, hence having guys at their new school leaving for the same possible scenario. But all the guys in their 5th year guys aren't going to minimize the importance of recruiting high school kids. I will lose no sleep if a school recruits 23 guys instead of 25. I also think if you research, less than 20% of college athletes exhaust their eligibility in less than 5 years. Compound this with the actual number that make it 4 or 5 years, and you are talking about a minimal number of athletes. So 75-80% of athletes take 5 years currently, so minimal change giving them 5 for 5.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I misspoke, I didn't mean to say anything about disappearing, but the impact on high school recruits will be minimal. Schools will still have approximately the same number of high school recruits on the roster on average in 2-3 years as they do now. Most these 5 year guys will either stay and guys behind him will leave or go to a place they can play and not be #4 or 5 on the depth chart, hence having guys at their new school leaving for the same possible scenario. But all the guys in their 5th year guys aren't going to minimize the importance of recruiting high school kids. I will lose no sleep if a school recruits 23 guys instead of 25. I also think if you research, less than 20% of college athletes exhaust their eligibility in less than 5 years. Compound this with the actual number that make it 4 or 5 years, and you are talking about a minimal number of athletes. So 75-80% of athletes take 5 years currently, so minimal change giving them 5 for 5.

I think we agree on the mechanism and just disagree on the magnitude. If a school signs 20 (or 22 or 23) instead of 25 high school players, that's exactly the type of ongoing effect I've been describing. Whether two or five fewer signees per program is minimal or significant is an opinion, but it's different from saying the effect is limited to the first recruiting class.

One thing: Is the 75-80% figure football specifically, and is it referring to five calendar years in college or five seasons of playing?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I think we agree on the mechanism and just disagree on the magnitude. If a school signs 20 (or 22 or 23) instead of 25 high school players, that's exactly the type of ongoing effect I've been describing. Whether two or five fewer signees per program is minimal or significant is an opinion, but it's different from saying the effect is limited to the first recruiting class.

One thing: Is the 75–80% figure football specifically, and is it referring to five calendar years in college or five seasons of playing?

But the thing is, the number of high school signings isn't a static number. The number of signings moving forward will still be within the range they are now and any decline over the long-term will be minimal overall.

That number is for college athletes overall based on 5 seasons. The number is also elevated because women sports.