Class Size Rules

Submitted by VicTorious1 on

Maybe this doesn't need to be a new thread, but there is a lot of confusion regarding class sizes.  Since this board is full of educated members, I'm not sure it makes sense to simply speculate as to what the rules are or to quote rules based on what you've previously heard.  As an attorney, I prefer to go to the source (being fully aware that legal rulings can shape the meaning of a rule or regulation).

The relevant provisions from the 2015-2016 NCAA Division I Guidelines are below:

Per Class and Annual Limit:

15.5.6.1 Bowl Subdivision Football. [FBS] There shall be an annual limit of 25 on the number of initial counters (per Bylaw 15.02.3.1) and an annual limit of 85 on the total number of counters (including initial counters) in football at each institution. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/92, 12/15/06)

Fall Recruits:

15.5.6.3.1 Recruited Student-Athlete Entering in Fall Term, Aided in First Year. [FBS/FCS] A student-athlete recruited (see Bylaw 15.02.8) by the awarding institution who enters in the fall term and receives institutional financial aid (based in any degree on athletics ability) during the first academic year in residence shall be an initial counter for that year in football. Therefore, such aid shall not be awarded if the institution has reached its limit on the number of initial counters prior to the award of institutional financial aid to the student-athlete. (Revised: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11) 

Early Enrollees:

15.5.6.3.2 Recruited Student-Athlete Entering After Fall Term, Aided in First Year. [FBS/FCS] A student-athlete recruited (per Bylaw 15.02.8) by the awarding institution who enters after the first term of the academic year and immediately receives institutional financial aid (based in any degree on athletics ability) shall be an initial counter for either the current academic year (if the institution’s annual limit has not been reached) or the next academic year. The student-athlete shall be included in the institution’s total counter limit during the academic year in which the aid was first received. (Revised: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

Grayshirt:

15.5.6.3.3 Recruited Student-Athlete, Aid Received After First Year. [FBS/FCS] A recruited student-athlete (per Bylaw 15.02.8) (including a student-athlete who was not a qualifier) who first receives athletically related financial aid after the student-athlete’s first academic year in residence shall be an initial counter for that academic year in which the aid is first received, if such aid is received during the fall term. However, such a student-athlete who first receives athletically related financial aid in the second or third term of an academic year may be considered an initial counter during the academic year in which aid was first received or the next academic year. In either case, the student-athlete shall be included in the institution’s total counter limit during the academic year in which the aid was first received. (Revised: 1/3/06, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

Definition of a Student-Athlete Recruit:

15.02.8 Recruited Student-Athlete. For purposes of Bylaw 15, a recruited student-athlete is a studentathlete who, as a prospective student-athlete: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11) 

(a) Was provided an official visit to the institution’s campus; 

(b) Had an arranged, in-person, off-campus encounter with a member of the institution’s coaching staff (including a coach’s arranged, in-person, off-campus encounter with the prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s parents, relatives or legal guardians); or 

(c) Was issued a National Letter of Intent or a written offer of athletically related financial aid by the institution for a regular academic term.

Feel free to peruse the source and make any clarifications or determinations based on such review:

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/usc/genrel/auto_pdf/2015-16/misc_no…

Space Coyote

January 14th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^

This doesn't explain the B1G rules, which are more strict, and I thought limited the class size to 25 max per class with 3 allowed to be back-dated (for a total of 28).

FWIW, it was my interpretation that you could EE as many as you wanted, as long as you didn't go over the 85 limit. But only 3 could be back-dated.

Jinxed

January 14th, 2016 at 12:58 PM ^

That's always been the case. 

Again, when we talk about the oversigning controversy we're talking about what the schools do between NSD and spring to get under the 85 scholly cap. If NSD comes and you're over 85(counting incoming) then you're commiting yourself to jettisoning some players on the program. Some people argue this dynamic gets some kids pushed out the door. 

CalifExile

January 14th, 2016 at 1:16 PM ^

It's more than that. Somebody once put together a summary of how many scholarships the SEC had offered over a certain period of time (5 years?) and compared it to the Big Ten. The SEC on average had offered an additional full year worth of scholarships. That allows a school to make up for a lot of mistakes and creates an uneven playing field.

Jinxed

January 14th, 2016 at 10:57 AM ^

Even if we stay at 28, it's going to be VERY DIFFICULT to not be at over 85 the day after signing day. 

What this website and this fanbase ALWAYS criticized other teams for was what they did between signing day and spring practice to get under the 85 player cap. Every transfer and every medical scholly was seen as a coach pushing kids out the door. We'll see how that narrative plays out once we start getting our own surprise transfers and medical scholarships. 

doggdetroit

January 14th, 2016 at 11:13 AM ^

People will be upset at first, then they will realize that Michigan's chief rival does it and has won 13 of the last 15 in the series with 2 NCs in that span. They will also realize that Alabama (winners of 4 out of the past 7 NCs, two losses from playing for another two) engages in it, as does the majority of the SEC, which has won 8 out of the past 10 NCs.

Look, it's a dubious practice. But at the end of the day, competing at the highest level of the sport has always been the expectation at Michigan. The teams that are routinely doing that all oversign to a degree. 

Michigan did things the "right" way under Hoke and his tenure flamed out in epic fashion. The people criticizing Harbaugh's roster managment will have to ask themselves if they would prefer Hoke's approach.

UMAmaizinBlue

January 14th, 2016 at 12:01 PM ^

Bo had walk-ons eating at the scholarship player tables for lunch, making scholarship guys mark attendance ahead of time so the walk-ons could get free meals.

 

The NCAA and Big Ten are run by a combination of academics and businessmen, and it'd take a LOT of convincing (with evidence) that they truly know what they're doing AND that they truly care about college athletes and athletics.

Reader71

January 14th, 2016 at 12:55 PM ^

Can't you see the obvious difference? Bo was helping his guys get better treatment. A coach who forces his own players out of the program for the promise of some new recruit is not helping his guys. He is hurting them. If that were to happen here, I would want that coach fired, National Champion or not. It isn't about the commonality of stretching the rules. It's about which rules you stretch, and to what end.

Stringer Bell

January 14th, 2016 at 2:39 PM ^

Harbaugh didn't want to medical Pipkins so that he could give his scholarship to a walk on (it's not like said walk on would've left if he didn't get a scholarship).  He does what's best for the team, and if he thought Pipkins could contribute then he would've kept him, and if he really wanted a grad transfer WR he would've gotten one (obviously he saw the potential our receiving corps had though and opted not to pursue one).

Reader71

January 14th, 2016 at 1:21 PM ^

That's a stupid comment for a few reasons. I didn't say Harbaugh was doing anything wrong. So it follows that I didn't say we had to fire him. Further, even if I wanted him fired, which is the language I used about the hypothetical coach, that wouldn't mean "we" would have to fire anyone. You created that straw man whole-cloth. I know it's a touchy issue, and I know we tend to want to hammer the unflattering opinions around here, but you're better than that. You can still use your brain. Read the words, respond to the thoughts represented by them. Don't fight against the imaginary boogeyman.

pescadero

January 14th, 2016 at 2:39 PM ^

"A coach who forces his own players out of the program for the promise of some new recruit is not helping his guys. He is hurting them."

 

He's hurting "his guys" that he is forcing out. He's quite likely helping "his guys" that are staying on the team.

 

"It isn't about the commonality of stretching the rules. It's about which rules you stretch, and to what end."

 

Rules don't stretch. Breaking the rules is like being pregnant - it's a binary situation. Punishments should vary based on severity, but no rule breaking is acceptable.

Jinxed

January 14th, 2016 at 11:57 AM ^

I don't necesarily have a problem with us doing it, although I certainly wish we didn't.

What I do have a problem with is the faux outrage that's gone on over the past few years within some elements of the fanbase. (I could point at examples but just search for "oversigning" in the site search. Those same people who were angry about the "spring creaning" in indiana, or St Saban Memorial Hospital, ect ect ect are now doing the math trying to figure out who we should encourage to transfer. It's just embarassing. 

Kramer

January 14th, 2016 at 11:31 AM ^

How do you know "it's going to be VERY DIFFICULT to not be over the 85 the day after signing day"?  Are you a coach/involved in the operations of the team?  Current player?  Just curious.

Terry Richardson leaving was a surprise to no one on this board, not to mention the coaches.  I'd think it's highly likely that they know of every 5th year transfer and/or firm handshake that is going to take place over the next couple months.  Additionally players that are transferring for playing time/fit etc, that are likely unknown to us, or at least rumored, are likely known by the coaching staff.  It isn't hard to get to 10 or so players leaving when you combine 5th years with normal transfers.

Willie Henry going pro and Ross-Douglas transferring were likely tbd's to the staff, which explains why the overall number of 28 spots is now being talked up to 30.

 

Stringer Bell

January 14th, 2016 at 1:17 PM ^

You realize you're freaking out over a report that Harbaugh may or may not take more than the initially reported 27?  Maybe wait for a little more information before you lose your shit?  I'm glad you have such integrity and choose to display it on a message board, but maybe wait til all the facts come out before you attack others' integrity.

Kramer

January 14th, 2016 at 12:20 PM ^

The biggest issue, as I believe Brian has pointed out before, is when teams have oversigned and then told players after Signing Day, or even after moving in (LSU did this iirc) that they don't have a spot.  My arguement is that by Signing Day it will be obvious where the scholarships are coming from, it's just WE don't know now, but the coaches do.  

But you do have a point that maybe we are too quick to point the finger at other schools when we don't have the full understanding of their situations, as I believe we do with Michigan.

 

 

Kramer

January 14th, 2016 at 12:42 PM ^

Hypothetically speaking, what if 7 players have all had discussions with Harbuagh already and have stated they intend to transfer?  Additionally what if another 4 players have all had a discussion with Harbaugh and were told by him that they will not be coming back as 5th year senoirs?   That gets the open spots to 30.

What problem do you have with this scenerio?  That 7 players transferred?  Transfers happen all the time, especially when a new, more demanding coach comes in.  

The fact that the number of spots may have increased from 28 to 30 after the Ross-Douglas transfer and Henry going pro tells me the coaches know exactly how many spots they have and are going to use them all.   If they're just looking to cut players why didn't they always plan on 30 spots?  Surely they could have found another player they didn't like if Henry was going to stay for his senoir year.

Jinxed

January 14th, 2016 at 12:46 PM ^

Alabama, Indiana, Tenn, OSU, Arkansas under Petrino, and many other schools could have made exactly that same argument. I've said as much on some of those occasions. When I make your argument on threads about Indiana bball or OSU/Alabama football oversigning I get negged to hell...

The truth is Brian has never cared where that attrition is coming from. He's always seen it as shady no matter what, and that was the popular opinion people had in this forum less than a year ago. 

Jinxed

January 14th, 2016 at 12:19 PM ^

http://mgoblog.com/content/unverified-voracity-tested-regularly

Brian:

"Meanwhile, another one bites the dust at Indiana. The Hoosiers get a commitmentfrom prep post Thomas Bryant, bringing the number of Indiana players guaranteed to get run off this offseason to three. Someone please fire Tom Crean."

http://mgoblog.com/content/unverified-voracity-rides-dolphin

Brian:

"Just another Alabama offseason. Alabama fans believe they will take 27 kids in this recruiting class, which means they'll have to eject eight guys from the program. Unless it's actually eleven, ie, the different between Michigan signing the 16 or 17 they expect to this year and a near-NCAA maximum class. At least Bama fans are no longer able to deny what's happening with sleight of hand, and have to admit they don't care:"

I could go on and on and point at dozens of posts like this. I won't bother because if you don't see the double standard already, I doubt you ever will. 

maizenbluenc

January 14th, 2016 at 11:52 AM ^

until they get to school, at which point in time graduating seniors, 5th years no longer on scholarship, and eligible players transferring at the end of the semester no longer count.

Why is there so much angst on this subject? We know players are going to move on. From what we can tell they are being treated realistically but fairly. In many cases those who have moved on (Cox, Rawls, Fleet, Countess) have done well.