[caption id="attachment_1752" align="aligncenter" width="537" caption="Tate Forcier was a 2009 early enrollee at Michigan"]
[/caption]
Fervent college football fans have become very familiar with "Early Enrollment", or the practice of forgoing the final semester of high school and enrolling early in college, over the past several years. Put another way, if you, like I, love college football recruiting a little too much, take a little too much care in knowing who’s interested in your favorite school, check twitter feeds to glean information on recruits leanings and “waste” hours (which eventually turn into years) of your life on the comings and goings of 18 year olds, then you're likely more familiar with early enrollment statutes than you are the Bill of Rights.
If you’ve read anything on the subject you’ve undoubtedly heard what a boon it can be to college freshman. Coaches will go on at length about how this early enrollees get to “learn their system,” and “give themselves a leg up,” by forgoing their final semester of high school and starting college early. It sure sounds like it’s true, but is it? Instead of speculating wildly, let’s take a look at the numbers. Then, and only then, will we speculate wildly.
With the help of two lists, the Rivals Top 100 prospect list (take a gander at that good looking son of a gun) and a list of early enrollees from 2007 , we can take a look at the success of 2007 early enrollees vs. their regularly enrolling peers. Did that extra semester adjustment period, to the playbook and the classroom actually help those players succeed? Did their absence from their high school prom damage them irreparably? Let’s find out.
(h/t Rivals.com's Chad Carson for the EE list)
Research methodology: If you can read a chart and are at least a partial NCAA qualifier (Neon Boudeaux, please read), you don't need to read this: We looked at Rivals Top 100 from 2007 and appropriately categorized them as early or regular enrollees (didn't work out too well for Michigan did it?), while also breaking these prospects down further into 4* and 5* categories. We believed 2007 was a good year to examine because the vast majority of the recruits would have matriculated by 2012 and can give us an accurate assessment of college football success of the early enrollee vs. the regular enrollee. We then researched whether they started their freshman or sophomore years and whether they were redshirted. From the given data, I think this is the best way to determine whether early enrollees have better chance to start earlier than their regular enrolling brethren.
We then looked at the NFL draft history from the Rivals Top 100 from 2007, breaking down the percentages of early enrollees that were drafted vs. percentages of regular enrollees that were drafted. In some cases, players were slated to enter the 2012 draft and we evaluated those players on draft projections. If they were projected to be picked, we put them in the NFL category, if not they were obviously left out of this group. We were very lenient on both sides so as not to skew the results (any more).
Key: EE = Early Enrollee
Starter in this case refers to a player who started as a freshman or sophomore (see above for methodology)
Success Based on Playing Time
(click chart for sharper image)
While our data set is relatively small, there are some surprising results. Among the 4 stars, we see only a 6 percent difference in “Starter” percentage after two years. In fact, in 2007 the 4* that enrolled early was actually more likely to red shirt than the regular enrollee.
5 Stars: I think the data suggests that in the majority cases, if you’re a 5* prospect you’re physically gifted enough to start no matter whether you arrive on campus early, or 15 minutes before the first game. That said, our sample size is too small to accurately surmise whether 5* EEs have a leg up although you can look at the table at the bottom of the page to see that of the five EE 5*s, four were starting by their sophomore year (80%) while 15 of 24 (62.5%) regular enrolling 5*s were starting by their sophomore year.
Success Based on NFL Draft
As stated above, our sample size for 5* seems too small to make any well-backed conclusions. However, we do find very little difference in the NFL prospects of EE vs. Non-EEs among 4*s. 50% of the EEs were drafted and 48.2% of the non-EEs where drafted.
(click chart for sharper image)
(click chart for sharper image)
The statistics majors among us would almost certainly again point to sample size and caveats apply of course, but I think it's worth noting that there wasn't a wholesale difference in early playing time or NFL draft success for the class of 2007 related to enrolling early. Extra time in the system and an additional semester of classroom adjustment time didn't make these players much more likely to start and actually made them more likely to redshirt.
Why then, is early enrollment so widely lauded as a tool to help recruits? It's certainly not because early enrollment allows coaches to sign extra players above scholarship limits and directly respond to attrition...Or? It might not be fair to say, but I'll say it regardless, college coaches (not all, but most) will use any and all loopholes to gain an edge on the competition. Early enrollment is one of those tools. If a coach can respond to attrition by plugging 6 recruits in his last class and allow him to sign 6 more in his next class he'll do it, because he likes his 6,000 sq ft house and his indoor pool. His kids like their school and his wife finally found a PTA that will let her organize the cakewalks. He will do almost anything to make sure that cakewalk status quo is maintained, he wins football games, and there aren't for sale signs on his lawn.
With all that said, I'm certain that some athletes benefit academically from early enrollment in the same way that some athletes benefit from getting the old fashioned high school experience. The jury is out however, as to whether early enrollment is the advantage it's made out to be.
Back to the Michigan Wolverines Newsfeed