forums

College Football Eligibility Hampering High School Players

GojiraCane

GojiraCane

All ACC
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
8,736
Interesting article on how the extra year of eligibility is creating a lot of uncertainty about roster space in the coming years, leading a number of schools to be hesitant on how many high school players that they sign.

sports.yahoo.com

As college football recruiting reopens, high school recruits 'are getting screwed'

The NCAA was lauded for giving fall athletes an extra year of eligibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. But a delayed effect of that is a roster management problem that will cripple college football for years.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
 
Advertisement
It's tough out there all around.

College athletes had no season or a shortened one.

High school kids, same thing, no visits, camps, etc. They don't get an extra year and have nowhere to go.

It isn't just football either.

Everyone lost something, and it sucks.
 
I think the bigger, long term issue is the transfers. With more and more players transferring, there’s fewer IC spots available for high school recruits. It won’t hamper the blue chip kids but there’s going to be a ton of kids who might have gotten scholarships to lower end FBS programs that will be on the outside looking in.
 
SayWhat said:
It's tough out there all around.

College athletes had no season or a shortened one.

High school kids, same thing, no visits, camps, etc. They don't get an extra year and have nowhere to go.

It isn't just football either.

Everyone lost something, and it sucks.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this is the biggest reason we are only at 2 recruits as of 6/1? A few quotes that stood out in the article:

Clawson proposes further scholarship relief past 2021, where teams are allowed to accommodate Super Seniors, but that notion hasn’t gained traction. (Football oversight committee chair Shane Lyons, the West Virginia athletic director, said there’s a “mixed bag” of opinions on whether change is needed.)

How significant will the trickle down be? Rivals.com recruiting analyst Woody Wommack estimates there are 75% fewer players committed now compared to a year ago at this time. Scholarships are so precious that coaches are being judicious, as ***** observed that his players don’t have as many offers as usual at this point. “Coaches know they can’t waste any spots,” Wommack said. “Anyone who is committed is likely going to have to work out in front of their coaches over the next month. Some kids are going to be surprised when they show up for a fun official visit and get handed a pair of cleats.”

Doeren said that the “logjam” is so significant with roster management that, in theory, if all eligible players returned to N.C. State he could end up taking no players in the high school class of 2022. He made it clear that won’t be the case, but empathized what the recruits are facing. “It’s almost like the Class of 2022 should reclassify as high school athletes,” he said.

“How do you recruit?” Clawson asks. “In theory you have no scholarships, and so what's going to happen is the schools that are unethical are going to recruit a whole freshman class and then cut those kids loose if they have seniors that want to come back, and the people who are ethical when these kids don't come back, they're going to be playing with 72 scholarships, potentially. The roster management is really tricky.”
 
The biggest reason why we're at two recruits is visibility and accessibility. We're largely after the big ticket kids, this who could go anywhere. They don't traditionally ink somewhere early.

This is a positive. The staff has high hopes on who they'll get. They want to see them in person, on the field, in a camp, and face to face. They lost a lot of that and in some facets, all of it.

I'd rather they be patient, do their due diligence, rather than take a commit (we could have a full class right now if they just took commits) to later break communication sending them their merry way.

I also forgot, but most of these recruits have already been to a lot of schools at this point. That was shut down and they'll still want to take their trips. Last year was unlike anything ever in recruiting.
 
Advertisement
GojiraCane said:
Interesting article on how the extra year of eligibility is creating a lot of uncertainty about roster space in the coming years, leading a number of schools to be hesitant on how many high school players that they sign.

sports.yahoo.com

As college football recruiting reopens, high school recruits 'are getting screwed'

The NCAA was lauded for giving fall athletes an extra year of eligibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. But a delayed effect of that is a roster management problem that will cripple college football for years.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
Juco football going to be really good next couple years
 
DTP said:
I think the bigger, long term issue is the transfers. With more and more players transferring, there’s fewer IC spots available for high school recruits. It won’t hamper the blue chip kids but there’s going to be a ton of kids who might have gotten scholarships to lower end FBS programs that will be on the outside looking in.
Click to expand...
more and more low tier teams are just going to have classes full of transfers. Why waste 3 years developing a kid who turns out becoming a stud just ends up leaving for a big program.

as always the ncaa sucks and doesn’t give a shi about anything but money, Saban and jerking each other off
 
Advertisement
da truth said:
more and more low tier teams are just going to have classes full of transfers. Why waste 3 years developing a kid who turns out becoming a stud just ends up leaving for a big program.

as always the ncaa sucks and doesn’t give a shi about anything but money, Saban and jerking each other off
Click to expand...
Exactly. Even if the smaller schools don’t take transfers, there’s still going to be trickle down when the bigger schools use ICs on transfer kids. For example, let’s say Miami has a plan B type prospect on their board. Maybe a mid range three star kid, someone good but not blue chip. Miami signs a transfer and that kid’s spot in the class is gone so he’s now looking at UCF. UCF really likes the kid so they drop the lowest guy on their board to make room for him. Their lowest guy does the same thing at FIU and now there’s a kid that was probably going to get a scholarship to FIU who got pushed out by the trickle down effect and he’s stuck playing ball at an FCS program where the scholarships don’t cover as much and the overall experience is significantly worse.
 
GojiraCane said:
I don’t see the argument why the NCAA shouldn’t be expanding scholarship limits after 2021. I’m not certain why we are even having this discussion.
Click to expand...


It's very simple.

It's because the "decision-makers" have a "mixed bag" of opinions. Meaning, they are more concerned with "will these rule changes help Nick Saban more", rather than analyzing this from the athletes' perspective. And we have seen this across the board on the non-revenue sports as well.

Rather than to say "we have had an unprecedented 2-year cycle involving reduced revenues and strange scholarship rules, we might need to (temporarily) break our rules on whether the school's general funds can be used for athletics", you see ADs who are slashing non-revenue sports and coaches limiting scholarship offerings, which is reducing OPPORTUNITY not just in football, but in all sports (except, perhaps, basketball).

When you look at how a major sports union works, they try to increase salaries for all players, they try to get more benefits for all players, they often try to minimize sanctions to players that get into legal or addiction problems. But the NCAA has never been an advocate of student-athletes, they only serve the universities. Therefore, the NCAA just doesn't care that hundreds of student-athletes (both high school grads and transfers) will have greatly reduced scholarship opportunities. The NCAA has been fighting NIL tooth-and-nail.

So, yeah, you might have a few university presidents and ADs and coaches who can do the math and see what the future holds. But you also have a bunch of those douchebags who will sit on their ****s and do nothing just because they are worried about whether Dabo will checkmate them under the new rules.

Student-athletes will lose scholarships, drop out of schools, and fail to graduate. But, hey, it will all be "fair" because every school is bound by the same rules. Right?
 
Sign of the times. With a new resource, transfers, available teams are opting for more proven resources than a 3 star with up side or a developmental player. It's life. Things change.
 
Advertisement
Billy D Williams said:
Sign of the times. With a new resource, transfers, available teams are opting for more proven resources than a 3 star with up side or a developmental player. It's life. Things change.
Click to expand...
Kids will be develop somewhere else, then transfer to a big time Division I : see college BB, coaches are on the hot seat and don't have time for development
 
Great article. We lived the experience this year. Camps were cancelled also so the opportunity for late bloomers is very limited. If you play at a "football" school you could perhaps be seen IF they were recruiting another player(s). We didn't so game film was limited.

Many schools canceled tryouts and no spots for walk-ons. NCAA should have given extra year if you chose to actually not play. So, it would depend on the players and school to keep track of what they wanted to do.
 
Well the NCAA has had how long to figure this out and they've sat on their hands. They have to increase original counters, you can't just give everyone a free year and then not increase the number of scholarships a school can have.
 
Advertisement
My son and nephew had this issue this year in basketball. Schools were interested but with players returning and transfers being immediately eligible to play, coaches were so hesitant to give out commitable offers.
Both will ultimately play in college but their options were limited because schools were telling them they had fewer spots available.
But as I told them both, make the best of it and things will work out.
For some kids its a bigger issue because the scholarship will often be the factor that determines if they attend college at all.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
It's very simple.

It's because the "decision-makers" have a "mixed bag" of opinions. Meaning, they are more concerned with "will these rule changes help Nick Saban more", rather than analyzing this from the athletes' perspective. And we have seen this across the board on the non-revenue sports as well.

Rather than to say "we have had an unprecedented 2-year cycle involving reduced revenues and strange scholarship rules, we might need to (temporarily) break our rules on whether the school's general funds can be used for athletics", you see ADs who are slashing non-revenue sports and coaches limiting scholarship offerings, which is reducing OPPORTUNITY not just in football, but in all sports (except, perhaps, basketball).

When you look at how a major sports union works, they try to increase salaries for all players, they try to get more benefits for all players, they often try to minimize sanctions to players that get into legal or addiction problems. But the NCAA has never been an advocate of student-athletes, they only serve the universities. Therefore, the NCAA just doesn't care that hundreds of student-athletes (both high school grads and transfers) will have greatly reduced scholarship opportunities. The NCAA has been fighting NIL tooth-and-nail.

So, yeah, you might have a few university presidents and ADs and coaches who can do the math and see what the future holds. But you also have a bunch of those douchebags who will sit on their ****s and do nothing just because they are worried about whether Dabo will checkmate them under the new rules.

Student-athletes will lose scholarships, drop out of schools, and fail to graduate. But, hey, it will all be "fair" because every school is bound by the same rules. Right?
Click to expand...

Excellent explanation, although, you could have stopped at:
It's very simple.

It's because the "decision-makers" have a "mixed bag" of opinions. Meaning, they are more concerned with "will these rule changes help Nick Saban more", rather than analyzing this from the athletes' perspective. And we have seen this across the board on the non-revenue sports as well.
 
Canesfan1899 said:
Well the NCAA has had how long to figure this out and they've sat on their hands. They have to increase original counters, you can't just give everyone a free year and then not increase the number of scholarships a school can have.
Click to expand...
But that wouldn't help Alabama, Ohio State, or Clemson. So it won't happen.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top