In Reply to: The 2027 high school recruiting class "will get screwed" by the N posted by mh on July 16, 2026 at 08:49:13
Yep, 25% more players for the same amount of spots. That's going to create a log jam for 2027.
After that, with the mobility available, I think it's going to look pretty much like a funnel.
Not much demand for Freshmen at the top schools, except for very top notch Freshmen. The Freshmen go to lesser schools, and try to get developed and prove themselves to move up the ladder.
To me, it would be great if the rolling two-year NIL contract became the standard. When a kid wants to move up the ladder, the new school has to pay a buyout to the old school. That would do some great things. 1) it incentivizes the "selling class" of schools to focus on development. They know that if they raise the kid's skill level, there is money in it for them long term. And, they know they've got to pay the kid for another year. More incentivization to work on development. 2) it adds another level of viscosity.
People will say this is the apocalypse. But, why? The old system, players didn't get paid for making the NCAA billions. Transfers were uncommon and could involve the requirement of sitting out a year. That was terrible.
Then it became the wild west. Kids got paid (yay!), and they can change schools every season. Nobody likes a system where either a) a kid can serially transfer, be disappointed, and repeat over and over b) a coach can say "I have no obligation to this kid, he's gone at the end of the season, I'll just bring in someone else"
With a two-year rolling contract, everyone is motivated to make it work. Coach and player, while still giving players that stand out the ability to move up the ladder. And, the (presumed) additional stability gives the kids some academic stability. They know that in all likelihood they are going to be at that school another season.
A word on the rolling aspect of it. The norm would be to re-negotiate a two year contract at the end of each year. The kid can say no, the school could say no. But, the kid would have another year where they are committed to the school (unless there is a buy-out suitor), and the school has another year where they are committed to paying the kid. Some minimal level of academic performance would be required of the kid, so that the kid couldn't just do nothing for a year and get paid.