Changes to 25 Signing Limit coming soon

[CuseLegacy]

Sources: NCAA Moving Toward Signing Class Expansion

The move would allow football coaches to replace players they’ve lost to the burgeoning transfer portal.

www.si.com

College football signing classes are expected to soon grow in size.

NCAA officials are moving closer to an immediate expansion of the annual 25-person signing limit as a way for coaches to replace players they’ve lost to the burgeoning transfer portal. The NCAA Division I Football Oversight Committee is finalizing a proposal that would change the signing limit this cycle in what’s being described as a one-year waiver of relief until a permanent policy is created.

Multiple officials spoke to Sports Illustrated under the condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of ongoing deliberations on the proposals.

A compromise is finally emerging among a group of proposals. 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.


For instance, a school that loses five players to the portal can sign 30 new players. A school that loses 10 players to the portal can sign 32 new signees, if the cap were seven. The replacement cap has not been finalized.

In fact, other proposals are being discussed as well, including one that simply increases the total signees to 30, 32 or 35. Another proposal, still being vetted, would require a school to use its 25 spots on high school players and would give a school an additional five to seven spots for transfers.


The impetus for immediate action on the topic is a result of policy changes that are leaving—and will leave—many schools well short of the overall 85 scholarship limit. While schools are limited to having 85 scholarship players a year, they are restricted to signing 25 players in a single class. The 100 signees over four years leaves a 15-player wiggle room for natural attrition.

However, there is more movement in the sport than ever before because of a rule change that grants athletes the right to transfer once without penalty. The transfer surge combined with name, image and likeness is resulting in another disturbing trend: coaches steering their recruiting away from the high school level and toward the portal.

Meanwhile, rosters are in for a critical makeover next year, when two classes—as many as 40 players—exit because of a COVID-19-inspired rule granting each athlete an extra year of eligibility.

Officials believe the solution is offering coaches more signee spots, hoping they will use them to both recruit the high school circuit more and to consistently remain near the 85 mark.

“We want to maintain the ability to recruit high school players,” says Todd Berry, the executive director of the American Football Coaches Association. “If we don’t have any corrective legislation, people aren’t going to do that. We’re trying to maintain high school recruitment and make sure universities hard hit by losses to the transfer portal are O.K.”


Proposals were brought before the Oversight Committee last week and then socialized among the conferences this week. The committee meets Thursday to further discuss the topic and potentially approve an immediate move.

It’s a somewhat stunning turn of events. The waiver would expand the 2022 signing class—which coaches are in the midst of amassing—four months before the early-signing period starts.

But not everyone agrees with the proposals. The annual signing limit in football has for years been an argumentative issue. It was originally implemented to disincentivize the trend of coaches cutting or pushing out scholarship players in an effort to over-sign high school players or transfers.

Earlier this year, West Virginia athletic director Shane Lyons and other administrators expressed concern that replacing departures with additional signee spots will “repeat history.” They believe that coaches will exploit the change by pushing out players to create an additional spot for more talented athletes—a reason for the cap on replacements.

However, in the compromise proposal, schools can replace only players who leave for the transfer portal on their own. Schools would not be able to gain additional spots for players dismissed from a team, pushed out by coaches or those who leave early for the NFL draft.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[CuseLegacy]

NCAA D-I Council approves 1-year signing limits waiver to account for transfers

The NCAA D-I Council approved a one-year waiver of initial counter limits to allow schools to replace up to seven football transfers.

theathletic.com

The NCAA’s Division I Council voted Tuesday to approve a one-year waiver that will allow college football programs to increase the 2022 signing class limit by up to seven additional spots. The decision will officially take effect at the conclusion of Wednesday’s council meeting.

The waiver was initially proposed to help coaches with roster management months after the NCAA passed the one-time transfer rule, which allows all athletes to transfer once and play right away without penalty. That, coupled with the implementation of the transfer portal in 2018, has made it easier than ever for players to move freely around the sport. Coaches have asked for guardrails and relief to try to restock their rosters and have some semblance of control.

"We believe schools should have temporary flexibility to help address possible roster depletion due to transfers," said Penn State athletic director Sandy Barbour, the chair of the Division I Football Oversight Committee. "This one-year waiver enables schools to properly utilize their scholarship limitations."

Current NCAA rules allow programs to sign up to 25 players in a new football signing class — termed “initial counters” — which includes high school players and transfers. Each FBS program also has a maximum of 85 total scholarship players. This means a coach could lose players to graduation and the transfer portal and then sign 25 initial counters but still be below the 85-scholarship player maximum.

This waiver will allow those programs to replace up to seven departing transfers above the 25-player limit. Schools will only be allowed to replace players who enter the portal after either the end of the institution’s fall term or Dec. 15, 2021, whichever is earlier, a source told The Athletic. Schools will only be allowed to replace players who are academically eligible at their new school.

 

[javadoc]

NCAA D-I Council approves 1-year signing limits waiver to account for transfers

The NCAA D-I Council approved a one-year waiver of initial counter limits to allow schools to replace up to seven football transfers.

theathletic.com

The NCAA’s Division I Council voted Tuesday to approve a one-year waiver that will allow college football programs to increase the 2022 signing class limit by up to seven additional spots. The decision will officially take effect at the conclusion of Wednesday’s council meeting.

The waiver was initially proposed to help coaches with roster management months after the NCAA passed the one-time transfer rule, which allows all athletes to transfer once and play right away without penalty. That, coupled with the implementation of the transfer portal in 2018, has made it easier than ever for players to move freely around the sport. Coaches have asked for guardrails and relief to try to restock their rosters and have some semblance of control.

"We believe schools should have temporary flexibility to help address possible roster depletion due to transfers," said Penn State athletic director Sandy Barbour, the chair of the Division I Football Oversight Committee. "This one-year waiver enables schools to properly utilize their scholarship limitations."

Current NCAA rules allow programs to sign up to 25 players in a new football signing class — termed “initial counters” — which includes high school players and transfers. Each FBS program also has a maximum of 85 total scholarship players. This means a coach could lose players to graduation and the transfer portal and then sign 25 initial counters but still be below the 85-scholarship player maximum.

This waiver will allow those programs to replace up to seven departing transfers above the 25-player limit. Schools will only be allowed to replace players who enter the portal after either the end of the institution’s fall term or Dec. 15, 2021, whichever is earlier, a source told The Athletic. Schools will only be allowed to replace players who are academically eligible at their new school.

They poked the balloon on one side. It bulged on the other side, so now they push there. Where will the bulge appear next?

 

[GreekFreak]

They poked the balloon on one side. It bulged on the other side, so now they push there. Where will the bulge appear next?

Good analogy.

 

[orangemass]

Good analogy.

I’m not comfortable talking about bulges

 

[DMDMD]

I’m not comfortable talking about bulges

 

[RF2044]

Wouldn't this be bad for us [i.e., a program in our station]?

 

[AAM62]

Wouldn't this be bad for us [i.e., a program in our station]?

Opposite, IMO. We will probably lose more to the portal so it gives us the chance to rebalance. They need more staff to focus on the portal for replacing lost players. It could be better than landing 3 starts.

 

[RF2044]

Opposite, IMO. We will probably lose more to the portal so it gives us the chance to rebalance. They need more staff to focus on the portal for replacing lost players. It could be better than landing 3 starts.

Well, if things expand from 25 - 30, then don't we also have to worry about schools "above" our station signing more, or chasing more closer to both signing deadlines that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to before? Both of which would adversely impact us [potentially]?

 

[javadoc]

Wouldn't this be bad for us [i.e., a program in our station]?

It could be, but it may all balance out.

In any given year you have the total number of players that can be signed by all FBS schools. Available space under the 85 cap subject to the annual 25 limit aggregated across all teams.

That big set is affected by grad transfers. If a player transfers from one FBS to another the size of the set doesn't change (generally), but the talent distribution does. How do we fare in that situation? I think we've done well the last few years. We've acquired impact players and not lost many (if any). The net effect on recruiting is that the transfer origin school gets to sign one more player, and the transfer recipient school gets to sign one less. If such transfers come from "more talented" teams then they have an additional spot to use on the best high school prospects. The recipient school thus may have less access to the best HS prospects but may get a more developed player who can contribute sooner. Tough to say who wins.

Increasing the annual limit means that the "more talented" teams have greater access to the "best" HS prospects. Maybe they replace a blue chip "bust" with another blue chip that pans out immediately. A team who is not likely to get blue chips straight from HS may thus be content with acquiring a player who isn't a star at Alabama, but is perfectly fine for their team - and who may very well go on to an NFL career.

So it's possible that the increased flux of prospects through the system results in higher-end teams having greater access to the best prospects, and actually finding/keeping them more effectively. I don't think that it would necessarily result in a greater talent disparity between the top echelon teams and everyone else, though. Raising the talent level at all schools will eventually hit a limiting effect where the talent difference isn't as pronounced as it is today. IMO. The issue today is that when a middling prospect doesn't work out at Syracuse, it's generally a non-contributor scenario; the player probably doesn't belong at the FBS level. If you could replace that with FBS players from the top echelon schools, then you get to a point where all games are more competitive.

I'm not accounting for the chance that players start to flow "up" through the system in response to NIL concerns. If that happens then I think we see much more regulation come into play and I don't know what that will look like.

 

[CuseLegacy]