NCAA: Expanding Recruiting Class Signing Limit

Submitted by MarkyMarkWitho… on September 17th, 2021 at 12:43 PM

Saw the post directly below about rounding out the class, and I thought this was important.

Under the plan, schools can sign 25 new players while gaining additional signee spots for every player who transfers out of their program—up to a certain limit. The extra spots would be based on the number of players who enter the transfer portal under their own volition and would be capped at a figure, such as seven.

Thought this was relevant as our class size could potentially shift quite a bit higher.

Link

MGoBoard
Football

MarkyMarkWitho…

September 17th, 2021 at 1:06 PM ^

I don't know if there is a better (more updated?) list, but 17 Transfers is a LOT:

Here’s a list of the 17 Michigan players who have entered the NCAA transfer portal this offseason:

  • Joe Milton, QB
  • Dylan McCaffrey, QB
  • Zach Charbonnet, RB
  • Christian Turner, RB
  • Kyle McNamara, WR
  • Ramsey Baty, WR
  • Ethan Deland, WR
  • Zach Carpenter, OL
  • Willie Allen, OL
  • Luiji Vilain, DL
  • Jordan Anthony, LB
  • Ryan Nelson, LB
  • Osman Savage, LB
  • Charles Thomas, LB
  • Ben VanSumeren, LB
  • Adam Shibley, LB
  • Adam Fakih, LB
  • Will Hart, P

Although not sure if Willie Allen really counts since he basically only had a cup of coffee in A2.

https://saturdaytradition.com/michigan-football/michigans-total-number-…

Joined: 07/12/2021

MGoPoints: 522

The Purple Helmet

September 17th, 2021 at 1:01 PM ^

They need to increase roster size to 100

The myth that cutting roster sizes would create some sort of equity is just that, and probably injuries have increased because of it.

Also, allowing more practice time (not just for stretching) would be another great idea

Joined: 08/07/2021

MGoPoints: 555

1WhoStayed

September 17th, 2021 at 1:07 PM ^

Roster size isn’t limited to 85. That’s the scholarship limit.

Disagree. Teams like Michigan being limited to 85 allows other teams to pick up “fringe” players and raises their level. Obviously Alabama isn’t at any disadvantage because they are in a great place these days.

How do injuries occur by only having 85 players on scholarship? There’s ~100 total on the team. Are you saying because they participate in too many plays? Shit, it’s rare that the 2nd team gets much run let alone the 4th team!

And more practice time!? That guideline is there to allow the players some time away from football. 

Joined: 09/07/2015

MGoPoints: 12119

The Purple Helmet

September 17th, 2021 at 4:15 PM ^

Point 1: limiting roster size limits viable replacements for injured players and at key positions . limited roster means rushing injured players back

Point 2: limited practice time—fundamentals suffer as well as finer points instruction

time away from football? Haven’t we all but conceded that that’s why they’re here? With NIL being something we all embrace we are admitting to being a football factory

Joined: 08/07/2021

MGoPoints: 555

DTOW

September 17th, 2021 at 1:38 PM ^

Its not a myth, its a statistical fact.  If Alabama has 85 scholarships and it is reduced to 70 scholarships that's 15 less players Alabama can recruit.  Those players are very good and aren't just going to disappear from the college football world, they just go somewhere else.  Sure, Alabama will still be very good and continue to be filled with 4-5 star recruits but they'll have 15 less of them that end up going to different schools.

Joined: 08/31/2013

MGoPoints: 6381

TK

September 17th, 2021 at 1:02 PM ^

Yeah I don’t think this really matters. It’s supposedly still 85 scholarships so it doesn’t really affect UM as we probably aren’t going to have close to 32 spots available. I think most schools are going to be in the same boat of having to give “free covid year” players the firm handshake.  
 

People tend to forget the big picture. Just because technically we could sign 32 doesn’t mean we really can. Unless we have about 20 players leave between now and next year. Which is possible but not ideal.  

Joined: 09/23/2014

MGoPoints: 18078

tomer

September 17th, 2021 at 1:07 PM ^

Just set it at like 22 kids per class w/ 5 years possible eligibility. That is 110 scholarship athletes. If you have early departures or transfers out you can replace them up to the 110 number.

Limiting class size to 85 hasn't made for more parity. The only thing it is doing is limiting certain guys from being able to get scholarships. 

Joined: 05/10/2011

MGoPoints: 4075

Dunder

September 17th, 2021 at 1:30 PM ^

Some version of this - yes - a simple rule.

My preference would be class limit of 25 per year (including transfers in). Each signee has the 5 years. A simple two line rule, still supports competitive balance in scholarship numbers, eliminates any incentives in running players that don't pan out off in order to get the slot back. 

Joined: 09/04/2010

MGoPoints: 8072

Rambling Wolverine

September 17th, 2021 at 5:16 PM ^

Limiting class size to 85 hasn't made for more parity. The only thing it is doing is limiting certain guys from being able to get scholarships.

I disagree.  I;m old enough to remember the Big 2 vs the Little 8.  Michigan and Ohio State had second string players that would have started at Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, etc.  Limiting scholarships to 85 has certainly helped Wisconsin, Iowa, MSU, etc. and has achieved some parity across the board.

Joined: 07/27/2016

MGoPoints: 270

MaizeBlueA2

September 17th, 2021 at 9:50 PM ^

What's funny is this is going to create more transfers. But nothing you can do about it.

More room to take "safe bets" that will get beat out when the big fish commit.

I like the rule though. 

Joined: 11/06/2018

MGoPoints: 50243