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?
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.
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.
Totally, and neither is the number of fifth year players. I think we agree that one (the number of 5th year players) can affect the other. Just might disagree on whether that effect will be material or meaningful. All good in the hood.
I disagree. The numbers don’t work for what you say.
Your number assumptions are way off. Getting to play a 5th season is significant, maybe huge.
Helena can’t see this. It’s obvious to me. 5th year players will take up a lot of slots.
Yes, schools have already began to decommitt there 2927s. Some schools have started to cut incoming freshman who were expected to be on campus in two weeks. Griz are in alot of better shape than most schools, maybe Chris leaving and taking half the team was a blessing in disguise.
What you just said is wrong, tho. It's also going to be high school players that are impacted. If up to an additional of roughly 20% of players play an additional year, those players are going to be the better players. They are going to force out up to 20% of other players. That will come from players a bit down the depth chart and a high school recruits. It is not going to be a one or two year thing. It is going to be every year for the future. Jeez, the math is simple. Yes, it won't be a full 20% more good players staying around to play. I really don't understand how you can't see this. It's obvious.
And I fully believe that even if 20% play an additional year, it will impact the 60% of returning players, especially the number within that 60% that haven't cracked the depth chart, rather than the 20% of high school recruits...using you assumed number example. Why would you keep a player that hasn't cracked the depth chart over, say guy 65-75 or even 70-80 when you can recruit a high school kid that can fill that same roll with more years? I stand by my thought that high school recruiting will see very little impact from this ruling overall. Those borderline guys already on the roster will feel most of it.
Which schools?
With all respect, HHB, I think you might still be thinking in terms of a single school system. I agree with you that the third-year guy who hasn't produced will be squeezed, as he always has. I don't know that he gets replaced by a frosh in each case, but that's more of a portal thing (though, now, portal players will have one more year, so there's that too).
