• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Age based rule to be implemented

HelenaHandBasket said:
But I think it will increase the number of current rostered players that are removed from rosters and enter the transfer portal, and even with that larger number, the actual number that find new homes won't proportionally differ from current trends. This will be were the increased spots come from and not so much from spots from high school recruits. So where we disagree is where the spots come from to accommodate the 5th year.
Click to expand...
I think that's a very fair way to describe the disagreement. You're predicting the additional pressure will be relieved almost entirely by current players leaving the sport, while I think a meaningful portion of that pressure will ultimately be absorbed through fewer new entrants (HS signees). Either way, I don't believe it's a one-time, 2027 hit.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
I think that's a very fair way to describe the disagreement. You're predicting the additional pressure will be relieved almost entirely by current players leaving the sport, while I think a meaningful portion of that pressure will ultimately be absorbed through fewer new entrants (HS signees). Either way, I don't believe it's a one-time, 2027 hit.
Click to expand...
I think for 2027 it will possibly fall more on high school recruits but that will be less so beyond
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
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.
Click to expand...
We are you coming up with guys at 65-75 or 70-80? UM isn’t even returning that many players. Are we even returning 60 or 65 these days? Your numbers and assumptions are off.

Edit: Roster limit is 105. Gemini says “total roster is heavily supplemented by 44 incoming signees (24 transfers and 20 freshmen)”.

So at most, UM is returning 61. As I said above, there are no players at 65-75 and 70-80.

Gemini says UM lost 27 to graduation and lost some more to Portal. UM must have lost or cut at least 44 players. Probably more, as there were rumors of some slots being open for summer transfers. Are they already in AI’s 44?

Not that those numbers are from before the
recent proposal to allow a 5th of playing.

So, in theory, had the 5th year been in place in January, all of the 27 graduating (or some with eligibility) would have been eligible for another year.

So what would have happened to the 44 new players coming in, including 20 frosh, and the 27 with another year of eligibility, to fill the 44 open spots. What would have had to give?

If posters have better numbers than Gemini, please speak. Is the 27 graduating a bad or good number?
 
Last edited:
I also think some of the short-term roster issues are because within a year they have made 2 decisions that impact numbers, the new limits now compounded with the 5 years of eligibility. Some sports will be impacted more than others.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
If so, then the impact will be even less.
Click to expand...
No, not true. With 27 graduating players now becoming available with 5th year rule under current numbers, and 24 transfers and 20 frosh, how does the open part of roster, i. e. 41, get down to 41? Which part of 24, 20 and 27 get cut. Yes, the 27 is a maximum number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top