Should NCAA athletes get 5 years eligibility?

[MplsBison]

It seems like true freshman get punished for being able to play their first year.


I think they should give all athletes (not just football) 5 years to complete 5 seasons.


If anything, taking 5 years for a 4 year degree would allow them to decrease their courseloads during the season.

[aggie6thman]

It seems like true freshman get punished for being able to play their first year.


I think they should give all athletes (not just football) 5 years to complete 5 seasons.


If anything, taking 5 years for a 4 year degree would allow them to decrease their courseloads during the season.

Summer school? There is no way that many schools would be able to pay for that extra year of school. I think four is fine. With all the scholastic help that comes along with getting a scholarships, the vast majority have shown they can handle the course load. It should stay at 4.

[rokamortis]

A lot of schools pay for the 5th year anyway because of red shirts.

[GOKATS]

Seems like a stupid question. D-I athletes have 5 years to complete a 4 year education. In most programs, true freshman redshirt- 4 years of eligibility. A medical might add a year, but allowing all student/athletes 5 years of eligibilty is ludicrous. JMHO

[aggie6thman]

A lot of schools pay for the 5th year anyway because of red shirts.

Good point, I completely forgot about that.:bang:

[GannonFan]

Most athletes in any sport typically take a lighter load during their season - some schools have winter sessions and all have summer sessions where they can and do pick up any slack. No need to add another year with academics in mind.

[citdog]

It is hard to report to The Citadel on 5 Aug and go through Athletic Cadre and then two a days and then start in the first game. This would help us.

[chattanoogamocs]

With the NCAA APR requirements and a lot more emphasis is being placed on actually graduating players (as opposed to just keeping them eligible)...many players are staying on afterwards to finish up...if they are there and can get 5 for 5...I say, let 'em play.

[ButlerGSU]

If you gave them 5 years of actual playing time would you allow redshirting still? That would mean they could actually be on campus for six years which is crazy. Because athletes stay on campus during each summer they normally can complete their degree in 4 years or less if they plan to complete it at all.

[ButlerGSU]

It is hard to report to The Citadel on 5 Aug and go through Athletic Cadre and then two a days and then start in the first game. This would help us.

With your civilian programs a lot of your football players aren't even in the corps are they?

[MplsBison]

There would be no freshman redshirts and no medical redshirts.

You get 5 calendar years to do 5 seasons. That's it.


Compare that to now.

Currently, there are 3 possibilities.

1) freshman redshirt, then 4 years eligible

2) play as true freshman, then 3 years eligibile

3) play as true freshman, take a medical redshirt, total 5 years


In each case, the 5 in 5 plan would be better.

In case 1, the redshirted freshman would be eligible his first year. Who knows, with injuries, his team might need him to contribute on the field that first year.

In case 2, the player is not punished for being able to play his first year. He gets to graduate with the players he came in with.

In case 3, you still lose a year to injury. However, if by chance you get healthy in the middle or end of the season, you still have the opportunity to come back and help your team for the remainder of the season. If you were medical redshirting and came back, you'd lose that redshirt year.



There is no way that many schools would be able to pay for that extra year of school.

Huh?

The scholarship maximum would stay at 63 per year.

[rokamortis]

It would certainly make it easier for the coaches to manage their players. Less bureaucratic too.

[citdog]

With your civilian programs a lot of your football players aren't even in the corps are they?

We usually have 1 or 2 players who are Graduate Students the rest are Cadets.

[ButlerGSU]

We usually have 1 or 2 players who are Graduate Students the rest are Cadets.

Are you positive about that? The Citadel web site states that students enrolled in their civilian program are allowed to participate in varsity athletics. I can't imagine a few would not pick this option as well as your coaches encouraging a few to select this option.

[citdog]

Yes I am positive about that.

[andy7171]

what you aren't factoring in is that the NCAA rarely awards medical redshirt years. If one plays their true freshman year, they have that redshirt year still if an injury occurs without having to apply for a medical redshirt. Scholarships are 5 years. Which works out to 12 credits a semester. Anything less than that is considered part time by the NCAA and most institutions.
Athletes who take a normal course load of 15 per semester and graduate in 4 years still have a year left to take graduate course work under their scholarship.

[AmsterBison]

Man, I actually agree with MplsBison on this one - as long as it stays at five years total eligibility.

[MplsBison]

If one plays their true freshman year, they have that redshirt year still if an injury occurs without having to apply for a medical redshirt.

However, they're gone for the whole year.

With 5 in 5, you can come back during that year if you get healthy in the middle or end of the season.


Scholarships are 5 years. Which works out to 12 credits a semester. Anything less than that is considered part time by the NCAA and most institutions.
Athletes who take a normal course load of 15 per semester and graduate in 4 years still have a year left to take graduate course work under their scholarship.

You could graduate in 4 in the 5 in 5 plan too. It would work out the same.

[andy7171]

However, they're gone for the whole year.
With 5 in 5, you can come back during that year if you get healthy in the middle or end of the season.

I'm not sure I understand what you want to change then. You just want to eliminate the redshirt clause and be eligible for 5 years of playing? What's the problem with the existing system that would warrant a change?

[MplsBison]

What's the problem with the existing system that would warrant a change?

Did you read my post?




Currently, there are 3 possibilities.

1) freshman redshirt, then 4 years eligible

2) play as true freshman, then 3 years eligibile

3) play as true freshman, take a medical redshirt, total 5 years

In each case, the 5 in 5 plan would be better.

In case 1, the redshirted freshman would be eligible his first year. Who knows, with injuries, his team might need him to contribute on the field that first year.

In case 2, the player is not punished for being able to play his first year. He gets to graduate with the players he came in with.

In case 3, you still lose a year to injury. However, if by chance you get healthy in the middle or end of the season, you still have the opportunity to come back and help your team for the remainder of the season. If you were medical redshirting and came back, you'd lose that redshirt year.

[andy7171]

I don't understand #2.
He's eligible for 4 years, or are you negating the first year.
If you play your true freshman year, and don't get hurt, your scholarship still runs for another year. Scholarships are for 5 years. Basically, you'd redshirt your 5th year.

[GannonFan]

Medical redshirts are hard to get because so many people end up taking a non-medical redshirt their first year. Once you make a football decision to use the freshman year as a redshirt year, it's almost impossible to get a medical redshirt for the first year you miss due to injury. If you got hurt twice and lost two years, then I think you have a pretty good shot on the second. But this idea to have 5 years of playing time, IMO, caters too much to the athletic side of thing and starts to stray from the academics. The main reason to do this, IMO, would be to have older and more physically honed players on the field. There are plenty of examples of guys playing football and graduating in 3 years, so graduating in 4 is not some Herculean task. And as others have said, your scholarship already covers the 5th year anyway so anyone who can't graduate in that timeframe either can't or just isn't trying. If we're just trying to make better football players, then yes, playing 5 years makes perfect sense. But I don't see anything wrong with what we have right now - the main reason to be in school is to be in school, not play football, unless you are a legit NFL prospect. The current way works fine - you get 4 years of playing and you can do it in 5 years. No reason to make football any more of a focus than it already is.

[MplsBison]

I don't understand #2.
He's eligible for 4 years, or are you negating the first year.
If you play your true freshman year, and don't get hurt, your scholarship still runs for another year. Scholarships are for 5 years. Basically, you'd redshirt your 5th year.

Actually, scholarships are 1 year at a time.


But even if they were 5 years, the plan would give the true freshman athlete a chance to play his 5th year instead of not being able to play.

[MplsBison]

the main reason to be in school is to be in school, not play football, unless you are a legit NFL prospect. The current way works fine - you get 4 years of playing and you can do it in 5 years. No reason to make football any more of a focus than it already is.

If you're a legit football prospect, you'll be in the NFL draft after 3 years.


I don't see why players good enough to contribute as true freshman should be punished the 5th year when the rest of the guys they came in with are playing.

[andy7171]

If you're a legit football prospect, you'll be in the NFL draft after 3 years.


I don't see why players good enough to contribute as true freshman should be punished the 5th year when the rest of the guys they came in with are playing.
Yeah, when I was a lowly redshirted freshman, I really thought to myself, "Self, you are lucky you aren't out there helping the team play and win, you got another year." Playing right away is hardly being punished.

And when my school dropped scholarships, it didn't just disappear. My class and the two below it got to keep them. Hardly one year at a time.

[AggiePride]

If you're a legit football prospect, you'll be in the NFL draft after 3 years.


I don't see why players good enough to contribute as true freshman should be punished the 5th year when the rest of the guys they came in with are playing.

HUH? In your situation the "players he came in with" would still play another year without him as their 5th year of eligibility, because redshirts will always be off-set from other players in their class and you only cover their 4th year and not the 5th. You only extend it a year.

Makes no sense.

[andy7171]

HUH? In your situation the "players he came in with" would still play another year without him as their 5th year of eligibility, because redshirts will always be off-set from other players in their class and you only cover their 4th year and not the 5th. You only extend it a year.

Makes no sense.
I'm guessing he thinks the red shirt year of being practice fodder on the scout team, getting your a$$ handed to you by the Seniors and Juniors is fun and counts has a year of playing. Those guys playing in games are really missing out of the joys of college football.

[GannonFan]

If you're a legit football prospect, you'll be in the NFL draft after 3 years.


I don't see why players good enough to contribute as true freshman should be punished the 5th year when the rest of the guys they came in with are playing.

"Punished"? How? You get to play 4 years regardless. How is that being punished? Who cares about playing with the rest of the guys he came in with - unless they were brothers or high school teammates most guys don't know anyone else in their recruiting class until they show up for practice. And anyone who's still around playing in their 5th year is there either because they got hurt and missed a year or they weren't good enough to play as true freshmen. You could argue that the guys who are staying around for a 5th year are missing out because they aren't graduated and out working contributing to their 401k as early as possible unlike their compatriot who played his first 4 years and is moving on with life.

[andy7171]

"Punished"? How? You get to play 4 years regardless. How is that being punished? Who cares about playing with the rest of the guys he came in with - unless they were brothers or high school teammates most guys don't know anyone else in their recruiting class until they show up for practice. And anyone who's still around playing in their 5th year is there either because they got hurt and missed a year or they weren't good enough to play as true freshmen. You could argue that the guys who are staying around for a 5th year are missing out because they aren't graduated and out working contributing to their 401k as early as possible unlike their compatriot who played his first 4 years and is moving on with life.
WTF??? That could be the most foolish thing I have read on this forum!
Most schools redshirt the entire recruiting class regardless of talent. It is the exceptional individual who is pushed into playing time his true freshman year. But make no mistake, the true freshamn that plays is the small minority. And at the I-AA/FCS level EVERYONE goes the full extent of their elligiblity. Anyone who isn't around for their 5th year either quit, kicked out of school or got hurt seriously.

[walliver]

One of the effects of allowing 5 years of eligibility is that it allows schools to get more bang for their buck from scholarships. Instead of "wasting" scholarships on redshirts, all scholarship athletes are eligible to play (although I doubt a lot of freshmen will get a lot of playing time.) It also allows true freshmen to get some game-time experience so that they can gain experience that will carry over until their sophomore seasons. It probably will have NO effect on graduation rates.

I support the proposed change, but, like most other SoCon fans, would like to wait until 2010 for the rule to take effect (unless Armanti Edwards promises to go to graduate school at a FBS school for his 5th year:D )

[HIU 93]

It seems like true freshman get punished for being able to play their first year.


I think they should give all athletes (not just football) 5 years to complete 5 seasons.


If anything, taking 5 years for a 4 year degree would allow them to decrease their courseloads during the season.

They already get five years.

[MplsBison]

Yeah, when I was a lowly redshirted freshman, I really thought to myself, "Self, you are lucky you aren't out there helping the team play and win, you got another year."

What about those unlucky few who didn't get another year?

That's the entire point.


And when my school dropped scholarships, it didn't just disappear. My class and the two below it got to keep them. Hardly one year at a time.

That's because your coach decided to keep giving you yours. Which is a classy move.

Scholarships are renewed every year.

[MplsBison]

the "players he came in with" would still play another year without him as their 5th year of eligibility

I know.

I want to give those guys who play their first year that 5th year back.

[MplsBison]

"Punished"? How? You get to play 4 years regardless.

Would you agree that a player is bigger, stronger, faster, and understands the game much more in his 5th year vs. his 1st year?


You're trading your 5th year for your 1st year by having to play as a true freshman.


I'm just saying we should give that year back.

[MplsBison]

They already get five years.

They do not get 5 seasons.

[GOKATS]

WTF??? That could be the most foolish thing I have read on this forum!
Most schools redshirt the entire recruiting class regardless of talent. It is the exceptional individual who is pushed into playing time his true freshman year. But make no mistake, the true freshamn that plays is the small minority. And at the I-AA/FCS level EVERYONE goes the full extent of their elligiblity. Anyone who isn't around for their 5th year either quit, kicked out of school or got hurt seriously.

:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :beerchug:

I think pretty much everyone except MplsBison has it figured out.

Occasionally there is an exception though when you have an exceptional athlete with great academic standards who can begin play as a true freshman, go 4 years without injury and graduate- these rare individuals are truly great student/athletes!!

[MplsBison]

Let ask it like this, then:


Who does it hurt to go to 5 in 5?

[DFW HOYA]

Anyone who isn't around for their 5th year either quit, kicked out of school or got hurt seriously.

Or graduated.

[HIU 93]

They do not get 5 seasons.

I see what you're saying. I think five seasons is too long. Five years to complete four seasons is good enough. I think, however, because of demands on their schedule, there should be an OPTION of a sixth year of scholarship so they can have the extra time to attain a degree.

[ButlerGSU]

Let ask it like this, then:


Who does it hurt to go to 5 in 5?

Less kids get recruited because of less scholarships. Larger programs this would not be a problem but smaller programs cannot afford additional scholarships so if you have kids camped out for five years some potential recruits will not be offered.

[andy7171]

Let ask it like this, then:


Who does it hurt to go to 5 in 5?
Why not make it an even 6? Better yet 7!
I'm pretty sure you have 4 years of elligiblity because it takes normal students 4 years to graduate. Or should I say it SHOULD.
Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior
The NCAA created the redshirt so student athletes could take a year to get bigger stronger faster.


Or graduated.
Right. But we're talking about redshirting. I'm pretty sure the PL doesn't do this. If you graduate in 4 years and are redshirted, your scholarship covers your first year of grad school.

[MplsBison]

Less kids get recruited because of less scholarships. Larger programs this would not be a problem but smaller programs cannot afford additional scholarships so if you have kids camped out for five years some potential recruits will not be offered.

This is the 2nd time someone has somehow concocted in their heads that this would alter scholarship levels.


63, folks. 63 scholarships are awarded every year. You have 15-20 kids going in every year and 15-20 kids going out every year.


This does not change that.

[MplsBison]

Why not make it an even 6? Better yet 7!

The NCAA gives athletes 5 years.

All I'm doing is saying that they should be eligible all 5.



The NCAA created the redshirt so student athletes could take a year to get bigger stronger faster.

Except for the kids who play their first year.

They trade that bigger strong faster 5th year for the smaller weaker slower 1st year.

[lizrdgizrd]

Every athlete gets 4 years to play. Why should they get 5 years to play?

[andy7171]

Every athlete gets 4 years to play. Why should they get 5 years to play?
I'm officially giving up. I have no idea what mplsbison is talking about. He thinks for some reason a kid who plays his true freshman year is somehow losing out by not getting his a$$ kicked for a season on the scout team.

mplsbison, if a freshman comes in and plays with the class ahead of him, wouldn't he consider those teammates the class he came in with?

[MplsBison]

Every athlete gets 4 years to play. Why should they get 5 years to play?

Every athlete has 5 years to play 4 seasons.

I think every athlete should have 5 years to play 5 seasons because:


Currently, there are 3 possibilities.

1) freshman redshirt, then 4 years eligible

2) play as true freshman, then 3 years eligibile

3) play as true freshman, take a medical redshirt, total 5 years


In each case, the 5 in 5 plan would be better.

In case 1, the redshirted freshman would be eligible his first year. Who knows, with injuries, his team might need him to contribute on the field that first year.

In case 2, the player is not punished for being able to play his first year. He gets to graduate with the players he came in with.

In case 3, you still lose a year to injury. However, if by chance you get healthy in the middle or end of the season, you still have the opportunity to come back and help your team for the remainder of the season. If you were medical redshirting and came back, you'd lose that redshirt year.

[MplsBison]

He thinks for some reason a kid who plays his true freshman year is somehow losing out by not getting his a$$ kicked for a season on the scout team.

Do you agree that an athlete is bigger strong faster and smarter in his 5th year vs. his 1st year?

If you had a choice, would you rather play your 5th year or your 1st year?

Some kids don't have the option to play their 5th year.


if a freshman comes in and plays with the class ahead of him, wouldn't he consider those teammates the class he came in with?

Maybe he would, I'm not him so I don't know.

I do know that the kids you come in with can always be considered the class you come in with.

[lizrdgizrd]

Every athlete has 5 years to play 4 seasons.

I think every athlete should have 5 years to play 5 seasons because:
Why should they get 5 years of play regardless of how many scholarship years they have?

[MplsBison]

It isn't scholarship years.

Scholarships are renewed every year.


They simply have 5 years worth of time to play 4 seasons. It's like an hourglass sand counter. When the sand runs out from the top, it's done. Likewise, when 5 years of time are up, regardless of eligibility, you're done.


Simply, I think that an athlete should be eligible to play the entire 5 year time period.

[lizrdgizrd]

It isn't scholarship years.

Scholarships are renewed every year.


They simply have 5 years worth of time to play 4 seasons. It's like an hourglass sand counter. When the sand runs out from the top, it's done. Likewise, when 5 years of time are up, regardless of eligibility, you're done.


Simply, I think that an athlete should be eligible to play the entire 5 year time period.
I hate to seem like I'm slamming you on this, but why do you think athletes should play 5 years rather than 4? Is it the fact that the years of playing don't equal the years of possibly being on the team (don't know what to call that)?

[GannonFan]

You didn't answer the other question - why stop at 5? What's wrong with 6 years? Maybe 7 is the right number. A guy will be stronger and better in year 6 so why punish him by only allowing 5? :nod:

[MplsBison]

You didn't answer the other question - why stop at 5? What's wrong with 6 years? Maybe 7 is the right number. A guy will be stronger and better in year 6 so why punish him by only allowing 5? :nod:

It was a slippery slope fallacy, so I didn't need to address it.


But since you brought it up..


my proposal isn't increasing the amount of time that the NCAA sets for students to be able to compete. That stays at 5 years.

All I'm doing is saying that athletes should be eligible for the whole time.

[MplsBison]

I hate to seem like I'm slamming you on this, but why do you think athletes should play 5 years rather than 4?

I don't agree with the idea that players who play as true freshman give up their 5th year to play their 1st.

I don't agree with the idea that a player taking a medical redshirt can't come back and help his team at the end of the season even if he regains his health.

I don't agree with the idea that a player doesn't get to play his last season with the players he came in with.


Those are the main 3 reasons that I think this change should happen.

[GannonFan]

It was a slippery slope fallacy, so I didn't need to address it.


But since you brought it up..


my proposal isn't increasing the amount of time that the NCAA sets for students to be able to compete. That stays at 5 years.

All I'm doing is saying that athletes should be eligible for the whole time.

And the NCAA set that time primarily to give the possibility for an athlete to play another year should they get injured. The primary purpose of the redshirt year was not to get stronger and better, it's just used that way by a system that places too much emphasis on the sport at the expense of the student. Notice that if a player uses a redshirt year for a non-medical reason then if they do in fact get hurt and miss a year subsequent to that the NCAA almost never grants another year of eligibility. The slippery slope concept is very pertinent to this since your actual position, that is, adding a 5th year of playing, is itself a slippery slope outcome of the NCAA giving ground and allowing a 5th year of eligibility originally. Just because that's been abused by the current system that focuses too much on athletic success doesn't mean we should continue down that path. :nod:

[lizrdgizrd]

I don't agree with the idea that players who play as true freshman give up their 5th year to play their 1st.

I don't agree with the idea that a player taking a medical redshirt can't come back and help his team at the end of the season even if he regains his health.

I don't agree with the idea that a player doesn't get to play his last season with the players he came in with.


Those are the main 3 reasons that I think this change should happen.
How many kids who start their first year are still around to play a 5th? Most of those guys are drafted or go to the CFL.

If a player wants to come back at the end of the season they just have to not take a redshirt.

His last season he should still be playing with the other kids who came in with him, it just might not be their last.

[MplsBison]

How many kids who start their first year are still around to play a 5th? Most of those guys are drafted or go to the CFL.

Only because they aren't playing college anymore.

The last few years NDSU has had guys every year who would've been back for their 5th season.


If a player wants to come back at the end of the season they just have to not take a redshirt.

And they lose that extra year of eligibility.


His last season he should still be playing with the other kids who came in with him, it just might not be their last.

Their last season and his last season should coincide.

[MplsBison]

And the NCAA set that time primarily to give the possibility for an athlete to play another year should they get injured.

The redshirt was established by the NCAA to allow athletes to forgo their 1st year of eligibility during their 1st academic year.


The primary purpose of the redshirt year was not to get stronger and better, it's just used that way by a system that places too much emphasis on the sport at the expense of the student.

It was made specifically in mind for players to trade their 1st year for their 5th year.

[andy7171]

Do you agree that an athlete is bigger strong faster and smarter in his 5th year vs. his 1st year?

Of course. But extrememly rare is it that a lineman comes in ready to play against others 4 years older. WR, RB, DB, QB are usually the true freshman who play.


If you had a choice, would you rather play your 5th year or your 1st year?

Years 1-4, hands down over years 2-5.
It sucks being a practice dummy.

[MplsBison]

Of course. But extrememly rare is it that a lineman comes in ready to play against others 4 years older.

In that case, 5 in 5 changes nothing. You'd be eligible to play your first year. You simply wouldn't.

But who knows? Maybe you get a bunch of injuries. At least then you're eligible.


WR, RB, DB, QB are usually the true freshman who play.

They should have the opportunity to play their 5th year too if they choose to.


Perhaps they'll graduate in 4 years and forgo that year to work.

Or, maybe they'll stay with the team and start graduate school since they could get the 1st year on scholarship whereas a player who plays as a true freshman now only gets 4 years of scholarship.



Years 1-4, hands down over years 2-5.
It sucks being a practice dummy.

Then 5 in 5 works better for you too.

You wouldn't be just a practice dummy. You'd be suiting up with the rest of the guys for home games. Who knows, maybe they get injured and you get to play.

[andy7171]

You wouldn't be just a practice dummy. You'd be suiting up with the rest of the guys for home games. Who knows, maybe they get injured and you get to play.
You DO suit up for home games. You ARE available if injuries occur. True freshman CAN play in up to something like 25-30 plays and still be redshirted.

The major flaw in your arguement is you think that by playing the first 4 years you are losing out on something.

[MplsBison]

You DO suit up for home games.

I suppose some schools allow their redshirts to suit up. I know NDSU does not. It's really too much of a risk. If you get accidentally thrown out for 1 play, your redshirt is gone.


You ARE available if injuries occur.

But you lose your redshirt and 5th year eligibility.


True freshman CAN play in up to something like 25-30 plays and still be redshirted.

You go in for 1 play and your redshirt is gone.


The major flaw in your arguement is you think that by playing the first 4 years you are losing out on something.

You lose our on your 5th year eligibility.

[lizrdgizrd]

MplsBison has it right on the redshirts playing issue:


You should know that NCAA rules indicate that any competition, regardless of time, during a season counts as one of your seasons of competition in that sport. It does not matter how long you were involved in a particular competition (for example, one play in a football game, one point in a volleyball match); you will be charged with one season of competition.
http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/membership_svcs/eligibility-recruiting/faqs/eligibility_seasons.html

[GannonFan]

But he has it wrong on the injury thing - you can play something up to 20% of your team's season, get hurt, can't play the rest, and as long as you haven't used a redshirt year already you get that year back.

Also, how does a scholarship work for a guy who played the first 4 years but needs the 5th to graduate? I know at UD players who can't play anymore (injury or otherwise) sign a release saying that they can't play anymore and they typically still get tuition aid but aren't counted against the roster limit. I would imagine the same is true elsewhere. I doubt these kids who play 4 years are being left out in the cold if they need a 5th year in school to graduate (besides, with the NCAA's new reporting these schools would get crucified on the reports if they didn't graduate players, especially if they cast them off after playing the first 4 years).

[andy7171]

You lose our on your 5th year eligibility.
you're only elligible to play 4 years

[MplsBison]

you can play something up to 20% of your team's season, get hurt, can't play the rest, and as long as you haven't used a redshirt year already you get that year back.

But once you get injured you can't come back for the rest of the year or you'll lose that medical redshirt, even if you do get healthy.


with the NCAA's new reporting these schools would get crucified on the reports if they didn't graduate players, especially if they cast them off after playing the first 4 years

Which gives coaches a strong incentive to award a scholarship for a 5th year player who is out of eligibility but hasn't graduated.

But he isn't forced to. Scholarships are renewed every year, so it's up to the HC to sign his scholarship or not (probably based on if he thinks the player can graduate without it or not).

5 in 5 guarantees that a player will be eligible all 5 years that he would receive a scholarship.

If you can't do 130 credits (or whatever a 4 year degree is) in 5 years, then you probably aren't ever going to graduate.

[MplsBison]

you're only elligible to play 4 years

"5th year eligibility" would imply a 5th year senior who has 1 year of eligibility left.

"5th year of eligibility" would imply that eligibility lasts 5 years.


Which is why I used the former term.

[andy7171]

But once you get injured you can't come back for the rest of the year or you'll lose that medical redshirt, even if you do get healthy.

You apply for a medical redshirt after the season. They usually are awarded, if you're lucky enough to get one, before Spring football begins.
Ideally, you get hurt, you rehab with the hopes to come back before the season is over.

[GannonFan]

I dunno, Mpls, this has gone on for 7 pages now and I've yet to see a convincing set of arguments why the system needs to be changed. Who's being hurt by the current setup? I just don't see this aggrieved group of athletes who are "forced" to play their true freshman year nor do I see the detriment to guys who play in their 5th year just because they didn't get to play in their 1st (or wherever they didn't play one year). The only real credible argument is that the football could be better because you'd have, in some cases, guys with 5 full years of playing experience out there. But as I said, I don't see an improved football product as such an important goal as to change the system. The system works, no one is really losing out, so why all the drama? :rotateh:

[MplsBison]

You apply for a medical redshirt after the season. They usually are awarded, if you're lucky enough to get one, before Spring football begins.
Ideally, you get hurt, you rehab with the hopes to come back before the season is over.

If you get hurt during the season and then come back during the end of the season, you won't be given a medical redshirt.

You must stay out for the rest of the season if you hope to get one.

[MplsBison]

The system works, no one is really losing out, so why all the drama?

You don't think it is a problem that a player who plays as a true freshman and the 3 years after doesn't get to play as a 5th year senior when he would be the biggest, strongest, fastest, and smartest he has ever been.

I do.


You don't think it is a problem that a player who gets injured during the season must sit out the rest of that season, even if he regains his health before the end of the season, if he hopes to get a medical redshirt.

I do.


Those are the 2 biggest points I see and the 2 areas where the product of college football stands to gain the most.

[GannonFan]

You don't think it is a problem that a player who plays as a true freshman and the 3 years after doesn't get to play as a 5th year senior when he would be the biggest, strongest, fastest, and smartest he has ever been.

I do.


I don't. Because he'll be bigger and faster and smarter as a 6th year player as well. The line is drawn somewhere and it's drawn at 4 years of playing. And the line's there because college football isn't a job - it's what you do while you're at school supposedly majoring in something other than football. Worrying too much about when a player will be at his zenith and tailoring his college experience to that end is just completely contrarian to the actual purpose of college athletics.



You don't think it is a problem that a player who gets injured during the season must sit out the rest of that season, even if he regains his health before the end of the season, if he hopes to get a medical redshirt.

I do.


I don't. If he regains his health and can play, then go ahead and play. It's football, people get hurt and occassionally will miss games. Just because he doesn't get to play a full 11 game season because he got knicked a little and missed a few games here and there does not mean he's lost his opportunity. It just means he was playing football and injuries happen in football. If he's healthy enough to play, he should be playing anyway. Medical redshirts are for recovering a lost year (not just a handful of games) - they are for season ending injuries when you didn't get to play a certain percentage of the season. The way you talk of using the medical redshirt goes against the ethics and the spirit of the provision.



Those are the 2 biggest points I see and the 2 areas where the product of college football stands to gain the most.

No doubt college football, as a product on the field, would improve with those suggestions. However, you'd only be doing it to make the football better and as I said, college football, at least what it's supposed to be, isn't just about putting a sports product on the field. That's what the NFL and other professional sports are for. College football will always have its tie-in to the academics that makes these kids student atheletes. That's been stretched over the years as players skimp on the academics for the chance at gridiron glory, but I don't see why we need to further that bastadization of the original purpose of the sport any quicker with measures like these geared solely to make for better football. Like I said, if these are the only 2 arguments you have, I just don't see how it's worth it. xcoffeex

[MplsBison]

he'll be bigger and faster and smarter as a 6th year player as well. The line is drawn somewhere and it's drawn at 4 years of playing.

There can't be a 6th year.

The NCAA limits the total time to 5 years.

It wouldn't be changing that.


Only saying that every player should have the opportunity to play during their 5th year.




The way you talk of using the medical redshirt goes against the ethics and the spirit of the provision.

It would be ending the medical redshirt option.

You get 5 years and that's it.

If you get injured all 5 years and can't play each year, tough luck.


However, if you get injured but can come back, you won't lose a redshirt in doing so.