5 years of eligibility picking up steam

[MplsBison]

Looks like high school athletes are not going to be penalized for playing as true freshman in the future.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2890793

[DFW HOYA]

Looks like high school athletes are not going to be penalized for playing as true freshman in the future.[/url]

How are four year athletes "penalized"?

At schools where 80-90%+ graduate within four years, I don't see much need for a fifth year outside injury issues.

[Eyes of Old Main]

I see no reason for this save for the wanting more time to develop players or to hang onto the good ones. However, this would create a big economic burden for many schools to pay that extra year of scholarships. Besides, if 4 years is the target graduation term for a regular student, shouldn't it be the same for an athlete?

[Ronbo]

I believe we pay 5 year scholarships now for players that redshirt. The kids that are thrown out on the field as True Freshmen are being robbed with only a 4 year scholarship. I wonder how many get their degrees? I wonder how many kids that come from poor households, play as True Freshmen, play 4 years, are 20 credits from graduating and all of a sudden NO SCHOLARSHIP and they have to drop out of school????????

If you read the article it takes an average 4.7 years to get a degree.

[aggie6thman]

I think this is a bad move for the NCAA. I agree that it will put a huge burden on schools to pay that extra year. No need for this at all.

[Ronbo]

Well Gentlemen, if Texas, Southern Cal, Florida, Miami, Florida State, etc, etc, etc. Oklahoma, etc, etc, don't think it's a burden it will pass. The big boys rule the roost.

[Attila the Hen]

I think it would be a good thing, particularly for the FCS schools. We've had a handful of cases in the past few years, where due to injuries a true freshman gets thrown into a game or two and loses that year of eligibility. Last year, two true freshmen got a lot of playing time at DT inclluding some starts, when neither one should have been playing at all. At least in this case, they got a lot of reps.

[MplsBison]

At schools where 80-90%+ graduate within four years

From the article:


it takes the average student about 4.7 years to graduate from college.



Also, another article on the subject: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=2888532



"I'd be for that with some understanding that if a young man finishes his degree before the fifth year, there are some options," Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer said.


So there you go.

If a football student athlete did not want to take advantage of playing for five years and taking an extra year to finish his degree, he'd likely have options.

[MplsBison]

I think this is a bad move for the NCAA. I agree that it will put a huge burden on schools to pay that extra year. No need for this at all.

Ever player that UC Davis redshirts is already getting 5 years of scholarship.


How many of your players redshirt?


Probably around 80%, as was mentioned in the article right?


Brand said that 80 percent of Division I football players are being redshirted

[MplsBison]

This also take away any doubt that a coach might have about using a true freshman late in the season. It would be a waste of his redshirt but they might really need him.

This way, it wouldn't matter.

[Maverick]

Can somebody explain to me how it will cost more to go this 5 year system? From what I understand you can only have a certain number of players on scholarship for the year. If you are giving a full complement of scholarships then it will not be any different. The NCAA won't change the max number of scholarships a team can award at either the FBS or FCS level with this proposal. As it stands now a player can play for four years, get 5 years of aid within a six year period. The only change is that they would play for five years instead of four.

[Ronbo]

Yep our programs only pay 63 scholarships a year. How can this rule cost more? It doen't make sense to say that.

[FargoBison]

This makes so much sense I almost wonder why the NCAA is even considering doing this. It would take away all the BS of having to worry about redshirts of any kind and would give athletes another year to get a degree. Sounds like a win for both the NCAA, schools, and student athletes. Whats not to like about doing this?

[DFW HOYA]

If a football student athlete did not want to take advantage of playing for five years and taking an extra year to finish his degree, he'd likely have options.

If the NCAA eliminates the fifth year transfer rule (which I believe they did), there would be no such options.

Remember, many schools do not offer a redshirt at all. At Yale, for example, athletes are allowed only eight semesters to complete their eligibility, so even medical redshirts are within the eight semester rule.

[FargoBison]

If the NCAA eliminates the fifth year transfer rule (which I believe they did), there would be no such options.

Remember, many schools do not offer a redshirt at all. At Yale, for example, athletes are allowed only eight semesters to complete their eligibility, so even medical redshirts are within the eight semester rule.

I'd guess there are more schools that offer redshirts then those that do not(especially those that play football). Schools with policies like Yale are probably few and far between.

[Maverick]

Citing the Ivy League? Isn't that the scholarships that aren't scholarships league?

[ASU_Chad]

I like the idea. I believe that it gives the players who may be NFL material an extra year to bulk up. Football is nowhere like basketball. It is not a sport in which people usually go to the pros early. Give em an extra year.

[Green26]

I don't like the idea at all. In fact, I think it's ridiculous.

Allowing players to play in 5 years means that fewer players will ultimately be able to actually get onto the football field--as some 5th year players, the best ones, will take the positions of younger players.

This would make college football even more "professional" than football currently is.

While I have never been a fan of redshirting, at least redshirting gives a player the opportunity to adapt to college life and have bit more time for studies.

I would be in favor of eliminating redshirting, and allowing only 4 straight years of eligibility.

Players who have completed their eligibility (i.e. their 4 years of playing) can have scholarships without counting against the football scholarship scholarship limit.

Montana provides some level of scholarship for players who have completed their eligibility. This is rarely, if ever, a full ride. Montana now has a separate scholarship fund for players in this category. As the size of the fund increases, the number of former players who receive some aid is increasing, and I assume the amount of their aid is also increasing.

Funding some aid for players in this category is the right thing to do, both in terms of it truly being the right thing, but also because it helps with school's ncaa graduation rate calculation. I believe that calculation is set up so that only those who don't graduate within a couple years of completing eligibility, count against the calculation.

I think all of what I've said is correct, but if someone knows more than I do, please speak up and correct me.

[MplsBison]

If the NCAA eliminates the fifth year transfer rule (which I believe they did), there would be no such options.


Unless they decide to simply not graduate.


Just because you have enough credits to graduate doesn't mean you're force to. You can hang out for another semester or two. Hell, is learning so awful that you wouldn't consider taking extra classes?



Or, you could start grad school at that school.



There certainly are options.

[WMTribe90]

WM would typically pay for summer classes of players that play as freshman allowing them to graduate in four years or at most 4.5.

I'm againt this rule change because, as someone stated above, your giving fewer athletes the opportunity to compete as scholarships would turn-over less frequently. Also, I think four years of eligibility in a five year span is the perfect time frame to allow players to reach their potential IMO. Even if a player competes as a true freshman I believe they can still reach their full potential in four years if they put in the effort.

There are advantages to playing as a true freshamn too. If a player gets hurt in camp at the start of their senior season thay could opt to sit out the season and have a redo the following season (5th year). This type of scenario is not uncommon.

Lastly, football can be a brutal sport. Too many players already have knee surgeries and other serious injuries during four years of eligibility. Adding another 11-13 games to a college career could greatly increase the chances of chromic innuries resurfacing later in life or the liklihood of serious injury (concussions, ligament tears, etc) during the playing career. Just a guess, but I'd put the potential for serious innjury at 10% to 15% per season as a starter (most teams lose 2-4 starters over the course of a season to serious injury). So, a five year starter would have a greater than 50% chance of serious injury with potentially permanent impairment. Injuries are part of the game, but should we expect amateurs to assume a greater tha 50% chance of serious injury, even if they are willing to?

Just some food for thought, I don't think its a horrile idea, but I think the system works well know. A better rule change would be to force all schools to pay for summer classes and additional semesters up to five years for any player who competes as a true freshman. The additional scholarships for the fifth years would not count against the athletic scholarship total.

[Eyes of Old Main]

Yep our programs only pay 63 scholarships a year. How can this rule cost more? It doen't make sense to say that.

Not everyone gives the full 63, but that's beside the point. The 63 maximum applies to active players. I don't think redshirts count against that total. Therefore, they are costing extra money.

At any rate, since there already is a 5 year to play 4 structure, why do we need 5 years to play 5 unless someone just wants an extra season out of their best players? As for the grad school arguments, what if a school doesn't offer grad programs? Would the students just keep taking electives even though they'd fulfilled their degree requirements? Or would you just have football players take less than full loads to make it work out evenly?

[Eyes of Old Main]

Although, after thinking about this, I might be in favor if part of the addition made FBS to FCS transfers sit out a year like FBS to FBS transfers.

[Tod]

I gotta back Ronbo on this one, he's all over it.

Not many people finish their degree in four years. Just too tough. There's no reason I can think of that we should expect them to.

And, if that's the case, why not allow them to play for what is the average amount of time, or just a bit longer?

Ronbo, tried to hit you with rep points, but I guess I just did too recently. xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

[Maverick]

Redshirts count as part of the 63 for the NCAA limit. The reality is that even with the 4.5 years to graduate, how many schools still spend money for summer school (which is extra and not part of the 63 scholarship limit). If they do go to five this could eliminate the summer school costs that are an advantage for some schools. As to the philosophical issues of 4 is enough, that has long been a tradition of only four but how much more professional is that going to be since they still won't be going on after they finish college. How many students in college who are also graduating in 4.5 (that number was not limited to student-athletes) are still participating in extra-curricular activities?

The one contention that I can see as somewhat valid might be that there would be sllightly less turnover each year for scholarships, but that number at most schools would be at most 1-5 per year based on the current redshirt policy. A few years ago, I read an article that was complaining that when Tom Coughlin was at BC, a lot of players who were completing their degrees in four years were choosing not to use their fifth year. That option will remain even with this change.

[MplsBison]

Hell, plenty of regular students are taking 4.5 or 5 to graduate.


We're not going to let a few prissy Ivy wannabes stop this.

[andy7171]

Hell, plenty of regular students are taking 4.5 or 5 to graduate.


We're not going to let a few prissy Ivy wannabes stop this.

Is this the smack board? Prissy Ivy Wannabes? Aren't you the guy who would ideally have every game played indoors and on carpet?

[walliver]

I suspect the proposed rule would have much less of an effect on the game than many here suggest.

1) No new scholarships = no new cost.

2) Schools that routinely red-shirt players would notice no difference, except that possibly a few players might get a little game experience their freshmen years.

3) The number of participating players would no change significantly as many(most?) fully-funded programs routinely keep players around 5 years anyway.

Most FCS teams would notice little difference. Only a handfull of players actually contribute much as freshmen. Linemen rarely play as freshmen. The only teams that might potentially benefit would be underfunded teams (like Wofford) where redshirting is not common - although I've heard that Wofford is quietly moving toward fully funding the football program.

The down side to this proposal is

ANOTHER ####### YEAR OF ARMANTI EDWARDSxeekx xbawlingx xbawlingx

[MplsBison]

Aren't you the guy who would ideally have every game played indoors and on carpet?

No, I'm not that guy.

[Ronbo]

JC Transfers would see a big change. Right now if they redshirt it's between their Soph. and Junior years. Many don't redshirt at all and only play four years. With this rule change they would transfer in after two years at JC and have three years to play at their new school. The Big Boys will love that.

[MplsBison]

Only a handfull of players actually contribute much as freshmen. Linemen rarely play as freshmen.

Unfortunately for NDSU, two of our best defenders of all time graduated this year after coming in with the high school class of 03.

They SHOULD be playing their senior years this year.

[GannonFan]

I'm against any rule that seems to only be proposed for the purposes of improving the athletic side of the game on the field. This just opens the door, in fact it seems to have as its target, to have 5th year guys who've played 5 years to be on the field in the hope that a team that has more of them will be at an advantage over a team with younger players. This has nothing to do with the academics and instead seems to want to create better football players. While I love seeing a good football game, I cringe when we start tilting the balance of college athletics more and more to a pro-style set-up. Players aren't being harmed in anyway athletically under the current system. Why change other than to have better football players, which isn't a goal I'd approve of?

[AZGrizFan]

Is this the smack board? Prissy Ivy Wannabes? Aren't you the guy who would ideally have every game played indoors and on carpet?


No, he's the guy who would have Montana and New Hampshire kicked UP to the FBS because they have loyal fans and win too many games. xcoolx xcoolx xrolleyesx

[GannonFan]

No, he's the guy who would have Montana and New Hampshire kicked UP to the FBS because they have loyal fans and win too many games. xcoolx xcoolx xrolleyesx

UNH, really??? Does he advocate them coming back to the FCS after Santos graduates following the upcoming season??? xlolx xlolx xlolx

[FargoBison]

I gotta back Ronbo on this one, he's all over it.

Not many people finish their degree in four years. Just too tough. There's no reason I can think of that we should expect them to.

And, if that's the case, why not allow them to play for what is the average amount of time, or just a bit longer?

Ronbo, tried to hit you with rep points, but I guess I just did too recently. xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

Amen, athletes spend a lot of time playing training for and playing their respective sports. Many also have to get a job to pay for the expenses their scholarship doesn't cover. I think this makes all the sense in the world, it takes 4.5-5 years to graduate these days for most normal students and I don't think athletes should be forced into trying to squeeze it all into 4 years. I know it may mean fewer get a chance but that is all good if more athletes get degrees, that is what it is all about.

[MplsBison]

I'm against any rule that seems to only be proposed for the purposes of improving the athletic side of the game on the field. This just opens the door, in fact it seems to have as its target, to have 5th year guys who've played 5 years to be on the field in the hope that a team that has more of them will be at an advantage over a team with younger players. This has nothing to do with the academics and instead seems to want to create better football players. While I love seeing a good football game, I cringe when we start tilting the balance of college athletics more and more to a pro-style set-up. Players aren't being harmed in anyway athletically under the current system. Why change other than to have better football players, which isn't a goal I'd approve of?

This rule is a purely academic rule.

It allows those players who play as true freshman to have 5 years to complete a degree rather than only 4.

[MplsBison]

UNH, really??? Does he advocate them coming back to the FCS after Santos graduates following the upcoming season??? xlolx xlolx xlolx

I never said New Hampshire.

Jesus, are you kidding? With that stadium?



I said Montana and Delaware.

[GannonFan]

I never said New Hampshire.

Jesus, are you kidding? With that stadium?



I said Montana and Delaware.

Wasn't replying to you.

[GannonFan]

This rule is a purely academic rule.

It allows those players who play as true freshman to have 5 years to complete a degree rather than only 4.

Are there student athletes who, playing as a true freshman, are turned out of school after their 4th year? I was under the impression that most schools give a little latitude to players to finish their degree. Heck, with the new APR measurement the school would be hurting itself by not helping a student get a degree.

Oh, and the "purely" an academic rule - did you laugh when you typed that? On the first thread that you brought up on this you were extolling the virtues of the rule because it would allow players to benefit themselves athletically because they can play as stronger, bigger players in their 5th year as opposed to their first. With that prior position, it's hard to treat you seriously when you try to couch the new rule as a way to bring the focus back to academics. xrolleyesx