Beano Cook on 5 years eligibility for football players

[MplsBison]

I don't know how to link to this, if it's possible.


Go to http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/index and then click on "Cookin' with Beano: Extending Eligibility".



The man is as absolutely correct as a person could possibly be on this issue.


Miles Brand has basically said he would vote yes on this issue given that redshirts and medical redshirts were eliminated. It makes sense for the NCAA. They no longer have to monitor and regulate the giving and use of redshirts. You simply get a 5 year clock to complete your 5 seasons.



It's going to happen.


3 years max.

[MplsBison]

I know this topic has been brought up more than once before by me, but I think this adds new credibility to the conversation.


I really think this is going to get pushed through.


And the way this guy talks, maybe for all sports, not just football.

That'd be fine with me too. I'd love to see our current basketball junior class be around for another season.

[McTailGator]

I don't know how to link to this, if it's possible.


Go to http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/index and then click on "Cookin' with Beano: Extending Eligibility".



The man is as absolutely correct as a person could possibly be on this issue.


Miles Brand has basically said he would vote yes on this issue given that redshirts and medical redshirts were eliminated. It makes sense for the NCAA. They no longer have to monitor and regulate the giving and use of redshirts. You simply get a 5 year clock to complete your 5 seasons.



It's going to happen.


3 years max.

This will be very good for the FCS in particular, IMO.

McNeese's coach (at the time), talked about this in 2002, when this first came up. He was for this from the get go. Those of us in FCS should also be far it, having only 63 Grants-in-Aid. This will allow us to play all of our kids and give us some depth.

In fact, I wish it would only be allowed in the FCS, this would give us an advantage with playing the SunBelt, and MAC's of the world.

[MplsBison]

I like the fact that coaches will fully consider using incoming freshmen from the gitgo if they're good enough rather than having to redshirt them to save them for their 5th year.

[DFW HOYA]

This works better for schools where players routinely take 5+ years to graduate. At schools where 4 years is the norm, considerably less so.

[MplsBison]

At schools where 4 years is the norm, not a single thing changes.

Players simply graduate having a year of eligibility left.

[McTailGator]

This works better for schools where players routinely take 5+ years to graduate. At schools where 4 years is the norm, considerably less so.


Nothing really changes. Players were already sticking around for 5 years anyway if they were redshirted as a Freshman.

Also, now players that do graduate in 4 (or less) can begin working on their masters. McNeese has had a couple of players in recent years that graduated in 4 years or less (Scott Pendarvis and Hadley Prince).

Prince graduated from McNeese in only 3 1/2 years after attendeing summers and all and ended up transfering to the LSU school of Veternary Science to become a DVM. He never redshirted at McNeese, he could have played a year at LSU had he had a 5th year. And as an All American, he was good enough to play at LSU. He actually graduated the same day of the 2002 Semi-Final Game vs Villanova about 2 hours before the game started.

Scott was an academic All American at MSU and graduated the previous Spring prior to his Senior season. He was enrolled in McNeese Graduate School as a 5th year senior.

[MplsBison]

It does also get rid of medical redshirts, which I think is a huge plus and something that Myles Brand is sick of dealing with.


How do you determine who gets to have a medical redshirt or not? Has enough of the season passed by that it isn't warranted? Is the player a starter or not? etc.

This just simplifies things and takes that unnecessary weight off the NCAA.

[rokamortis]

I like it.

[Tod]

I like it.

Ditto. :)

[Eyes of Old Main]

I say go for it, so long as they don't also increase the scholarship counts. Adding a 5th year of eligibility will hold many seniors on the roster another year which will limit some opportunities for new players, but adding scholarships will only increase the divide between schools with the full allotment and ones without.

[MplsBison]

If 5 year eligibility would've happened starting with the HS graduation class of 2003, NDSU would've had 2 extra seniors this season who were starters last year (our starting DT and SS).


Basically, you're getting back the guys who didn't redshirt their first year.



But anyway, no I don't think this would have any impact on scholarship maximums.

[AndrewFU21]

Nothing really changes. Players were already sticking around for 5 years anyway if they were redshirted as a Freshman.



Well at FU we already have a number of guys who redshirt, then graduate in four years and are ready to move on in their lives instead of playing a 5th year. This rule could definitely hurt schools where players are there to go to school first and play football second.

I'm not a fan of this, mainly for historical and statistical reasons. You can say goodbye to every single record for career stats very soon if this is a reality.

[MplsBison]

Well at FU we already have a number of guys who redshirt, then graduate in four years and are ready to move on in their lives instead of playing a 5th year.

Then absolutely nothing would change for you.

You still have a number of guys who graduate in 4 years and leave with a year of eligibility remaining.


This rule could definitely hurt schools where players are there to go to school first and play football second


It absolutely could not hurt a single school in any way possible.

If a player wants to graduate in 4 or even 3 years, this rule does not limit them from doing that.

How could you misconstrue this so badly?


You can say goodbye to every single record for career stats very soon if this is a reality.


Again, utterly false.


The only way this rule change could impact career records is if you have a 5 year starter who doesn't jump up early to the NFL, never gets hurt, doesn't graduate early, and is as consistent from his true freshman year to his 5th year.


Guarantee it won't happen. Not at DI anyway.

[DFW HOYA]

It absolutely could not hurt a single school in any way possible.

It doesn't "hurt" a school but for those schools which do not have a graduate school option for that 5th year (Lafayette, Holy Cross, etc.), it doesn't help.

[MplsBison]

Who says that just because you have enough credits to graduate after your 4th year that you're forced to do so?

Take some other classes for another semester and graduate in 4.5.


Would that really be so bad?

[CopperCat]

Giving players 5 years would possibly have some negative academic implications. The prospect of playing for five straight years for some players COULD mean that they graduate in 5.5 or even 6. This is just a continuation of the trend that we currently see where 4 years on the team translates into a five year stay to complete a degree. That is ONLY A POSSIBILITY.

But other than that, I think this would be a great idea. It would create fewer headaches for the teams and for the NCAA in regulating/keeping track of redshirts/med. redshirts. I don't really know if or when this happens, but I'm all in.xthumbsupx Good topic Mpls!

[MplsBison]

Giving players 5 years would possibly have some negative academic implications.

Beano thinks that if 5 years eligibility passes there will also be some sort of minimum graduation rate associated with it. Fail to meet it and you lose scholarships.


If your players get 5 years, he thinks you ought to graduate 85%.


I don't really know if or when this happens, but I'm all in.xthumbsupx Good topic Mpls!

Beano is thinking in the next couple of years!

[Maverick]

The graduating in 5.5 years is not as likely as you make it. Under NCAA rules, a student has to have earned at least 96 of 120 credits to graduate entering the 5th year. As they must be enrolled full-time (12 semester hours/credits) per term, that would put them right on target for graduation. There is also the NCAA APR that would be effected if they did not earn the credits to graduate. That impact could cost them scholarships for not graduating on time. So the 5.5 years issue is not significant as you might believe.

Also national studies indicate that even for non-athletes, graduation takes closer to 5 years than 4.

The 5 years of eligibility idea is not really a new one anyway, it has been discussed for at least 10 years in various circles in college athletics among ADs, conference leadership, and various NCAA committees even if there has not been proposed legislation. The idea being that there will not be a huge increase of first year full-time participation. There may be an increase in the numbers but there never was the idea that huge numbers of first year players who could play full-time were being withheld, especially in FBS. Now with the lower numbers in FCS, there would be mor participation in terms of possibly special teams or back-ups due to injuries, but if the kid would be a significant or impact player, that kid is playing. What most coaches understand is that a fifth year player has more value than a frosh after 4 years of learning a system and developing physically. Ask a coach about this and you will see that they agree about the more developed player in the fifth year having more value than a true first year player.