• 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:
The freshman on the team in a given season would be the latest high school recruits. There will be no additional pressure for these kids to play right away. Schools will still be able to essential redshirt kids.
Click to expand...
The bigger question is what do we call the 4th and 5th year players? Seniors and super seniors? Do we revert to simple numbers? Bigger question than thinking we’re replacing HS recruits lol.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
That early entrants will be expected to play right away? I don't agree that they will be expected to play right away.
Click to expand...

We might be talking about different things. I’m talking about a recruit that graduates HS early to enroll FT in college in January of what would have been his senior year of HS. Clock starts then, right? Can’t do team activities as a part time student, right? By January of year 5, his clock stops, right? If there is a late playoff game…I’m just thinking of anomalies where it could come up, not saying it’s a huge problem.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
Well, I have been told over and over that there will be limited space for high school recruits because there will be so many upperclassman that stick around, that incoming freshman will never see the field...so not sure why showing up early matters when they will have that entire first year to lift weights.
Click to expand...
Because some are capable of playing early and some aren’t. In any event, there will be fewer frosh recruited now under the 5 year to play rule. But that doesn’t mean that early arrivals won’t be encouraged and welcomed.

Now I understand what RP was saying and agree with him. Plus he showed he has much better info on the subject than the rest of us. I am glad he got to answer the questions, and not you. I suspected that I didn’t understand what he was saying initially.
 
Bobcat99 said:
By that logic they must think players like Solomon Tulio-whatever have ruined the career of several HS recruits.
Click to expand...

If, and only if, he was counted to hard roster caps all the way through, downstream, system wide there was a player who didn’t get a spot. Only so many rooms at the inn.

But it wasn’t necessarily a HS signee(s) (that is where HHB is spot on). It could’ve been: a high school signee, a transfer, a current underclassman who got processed out, or a walk-on who never got the opportunity. HHB’s position is that those other categories will be affected enough to cancel out the extra year of eligibility will have on HS recruit opportunities, and we can’t say he’s wrong yet. We just have to see.
 
Last edited:
Bobcat99 said:
While I have you, what do you think of BK’s outdated decision to go after HS recruits more than Hauck? I thought going after transfers was the future.

;)
Click to expand...
I can’t answer for hoops, but I think at our FCS level, HS recruiting could become even more interesting and important than before. I always thought the portal could create an opportunity for lower levels to get HS recruits they wouldn’t have had a shot at before if they sold it right. I think the new eligibility rules could increase those opportunities.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
I can’t answer for hoops, but I think at our FCS level, HS recruiting could become even more interesting and important than before. I always thought the portal could create an opportunity for lower levels to get HS recruits they wouldn’t have had a shot at before if they sold it right. I think the new eligibility rules could increase those opportunities.
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
If, and only if, he was counted to hard roster caps all the way through, downstream, there was a player who didn’t get a spot. Only so many rooms at the inn.

But it wasn’t necessarily a HS signee(s) (that is where HHB is spot on). It could’ve been: a high school signee, a transfer, a current underclassman who got processed out, or a walk-on who never got the opportunity. HHB’s position is that those other categories will be affected enough to cancel out the extra year of eligibility, and we can’t say he’s wrong yet. We just have to see.
Click to expand...
What you said is not correct. Nothing is going to cancel out the reduction of scholarships offered to high school players. Nobody in the know is saying that.
 
mthoopsfan said:
What you said is not correct. Nothing is going to cancel out the reduction of scholarships offered to high school players. Nobody in the know is saying that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so either. I’m trying to give people the benefit of the doubt somewhat.

In some odd world, it’s possible (not probable) that every single player who exercises his 5th year, where he would’ve played 4 otherwise, is offset by someone departing the system for some other reason other than running out of eligibility (in perpetuity) such that the number of HS recruit opportunities remains unchanged forever. That’s the only way it has no effect on the number of HS opportunities available system wide. I don’t see it happening, but some people disagree.
 
Bobcat99 said:
While I have you, what do you think of BK’s outdated decision to go after HS recruits more than Hauck? I thought going after transfers was the future.

;)
Click to expand...
I don't know what BK is doing. I'm a snowbird, a world traveller, a writer of mini-books and mini-writings, a lake person, a daydreamer, a big mouth on egriz, etc. I have not been following recruiting closely, and I don't have time for that. Way too busy.

Note that he was recruiting and signing high school players before the new rule was proposed. What BK has done will have to be judged after the number of high school signees is known. Gemini says that for 2026, UM has 20 high school players and 24 transfers coming in, and that is probably before the several summer transfers. Going after transfers is the future. Compare UM transfer numbers to MSU. MSU will soon start falling behind, if it doesn't change course.
 
Last edited:
CDAGRIZ said:
I don’t think so either. I’m trying to give people the benefit of the doubt somewhat.

In some odd world, it’s possible (not probable) that every single player who exercises his 5th year where he would’ve played 4 otherwise is offset by someone departing the system for some other reason other than running out of eligibility (in perpetuity) such that the number of HS recruit opportunities remains unchanged forever. That’s the only way it has no effect on the number of HS opportunities available system wide. I don’t see it happening, but some people disagree.
Click to expand...
Sure, almost anything is possible in theory, but I don't operate in that alternate reality. I operate in what is going on and going to happen. And I see no reason to give Helena the benefit of the doubt for anything. He doesn't deserve it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top