CAA proposal for five season's eligibility makes sense.

[Tribe4SF]

From David Teel of the Daily Press.

"To me it's pretty much all positive," William and Mary coach Jimmye Laycock said Monday. "It's such a developmental game, and everybody tries to redshirt people. But when you do, with the scholarship numbers, you get very thin.

"That fifth year makes a big, big difference."


http://www.dailypress.com/sports/colleges/dp-spt-teel-column-caa-five-year-plan20110620,0,5439460.column

[henfan]

Good job by Teal on this article. If Laycock supports the concept, you know it's coming from the right place.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Cut through all the blah-blah-blah of student welfare, puppy dogs and ice cream - and a heaping dose of "who could possibly be against this?" - is the real reason why the CAA wants to do this, to have FCS (read: the CAA) become even more of a developmental league for FBS transfers that it already is.

Example: Redshirt QB Dat Pevlin plays 3 years for Penn State. With a new QB in front of him, he transfers to Delaware and gets two years of eligibility instead of just one - and he can play right away.

Before, the fictional Mr. Pevlin could not transfer to Delaware to become their starting QB, since the NCAA closed that loophole when it put restrictions on senior-year transfers. Now he can.

It's basically a way to bring more of a competitive advantage for the CAA over the schools that don't redshirt as many players, whether it be for philosophical reasons (Ivy, Patriot, Pioneer) or financial reasons (almost every other league). This is why it has no chance of passage, not least that it opens up a slippery-slope discussion on five years of eligibility across all sports, which the NCAA in no way desires. Not every league wants to CAA to get even more FBS transfer athletes, and every league has some members that aren't as well-off as others.

[ccd494]

I like how every time a proposal is made to adjust FCS football, we need to wait for the Patriot League to pop back into the present and weigh in from the 1890's fairy tale land in which they permanently reside.

[Wildcat80]

After reading the article the proposal is actually QUITE RADICAL. It proposes 5 years of eligibility for playing time. Does any other NCAA sport or division have this??? I am personally against promoting more FBS transfers to FCS schools. The UNH model is to develop student-athletes over 4 or 5 years at UNH which is IMO more appropriate to the true role of colleges.

[DFW HOYA]

I like how every time a proposal is made to adjust FCS football, we need to wait for the Patriot League to pop back into the present and weigh in from the 1890's fairy tale land in which they permanently reside.

Well, keep waiting. None of these schools are going to give five years when 90%+ of the student body finishes in four.

[WMTribe90]

Well, keep waiting. None of these schools are going to give five years when 90%+ of the student body finishes in four.

Without looking, I'd wager that 90% of the student body at WM, UR and VU finish in four years and red-shirting football players hasn't destoyed academic integrity at these schools. I'd guess UD and UNH are in that neighborhood as well.

[GannonFan]

Cut through all the blah-blah-blah of student welfare, puppy dogs and ice cream - and a heaping dose of "who could possibly be against this?" - is the real reason why the CAA wants to do this, to have FCS (read: the CAA) become even more of a developmental league for FBS transfers that it already is.

Example: Redshirt QB Dat Pevlin plays 3 years for Penn State. With a new QB in front of him, he transfers to Delaware and gets two years of eligibility instead of just one - and he can play right away.

Before, the fictional Mr. Pevlin could not transfer to Delaware to become their starting QB, since the NCAA closed that loophole when it put restrictions on senior-year transfers. Now he can.

It's basically a way to bring more of a competitive advantage for the CAA over the schools that don't redshirt as many players, whether it be for philosophical reasons (Ivy, Patriot, Pioneer) or financial reasons (almost every other league). This is why it has no chance of passage, not least that it opens up a slippery-slope discussion on five years of eligibility across all sports, which the NCAA in no way desires. Not every league wants to CAA to get even more FBS transfer athletes, and every league has some members that aren't as well-off as others.

Or you could see it as folks like you and other Patsy guys as being primarily concerned about the play on the field and your own team's competitiveness on it that you're perfectly willing and accepting of measures to punish student athletes and restrict them so that your own teams aren't negatively impacted. It was odd when you were so adamant against upperclassmen transfers and now about this. Why are you so anti-student athlete? Does Lehigh winning matter that much to you? Didn't think a Lehigh guy would be so gung-ho for football success - hardly seems to be one of the primary focuses of a university. xcoffeex

[DFW HOYA]

Without looking, I'd wager that 90% of the student body at WM, UR and VU finish in four years and red-shirting football players hasn't destoyed academic integrity at these schools. I'd guess UD and UNH are in that neighborhood as well.

I don't see it solely as an academic issue as much as well as one of cost. Absent scholarships, that's a financial aid commitment to cover more students with the same budget.

And why not six? Or if a student gets into law school, seven? Four years is usually fine. Remember, it was once three.

[henfan]

It's basically a way to bring more of a competitive advantage for the CAA over the schools that don't redshirt as many players, whether it be for philosophical reasons (Ivy, Patriot, Pioneer) or financial reasons (almost every other league).

Really? The CAA needs this legislation to provide a competitive advantage over the Ivy, PL & PL? xlolx

[WMTribe90]

Cut through all the blah-blah-blah of student welfare, puppy dogs and ice cream - and a heaping dose of "who could possibly be against this?" - is the real reason why the CAA wants to do this, to have FCS (read: the CAA) become even more of a developmental league for FBS transfers that it already is.

Example: Redshirt QB Dat Pevlin plays 3 years for Penn State. With a new QB in front of him, he transfers to Delaware and gets two years of eligibility instead of just one - and he can play right away.

Before, the fictional Mr. Pevlin could not transfer to Delaware to become their starting QB, since the NCAA closed that loophole when it put restrictions on senior-year transfers. Now he can.

It's basically a way to bring more of a competitive advantage for the CAA over the schools that don't redshirt as many players, whether it be for philosophical reasons (Ivy, Patriot, Pioneer) or financial reasons (almost every other league). This is why it has no chance of passage, not least that it opens up a slippery-slope discussion on five years of eligibility across all sports, which the NCAA in no way desires. Not every league wants to CAA to get even more FBS transfer athletes, and every league has some members that aren't as well-off as others.

Can't wait for the blog post on this one. Be sure you're wearing your tin foil hat when you're hatching your latest conspiracy theory. If the Patriot League wants to hold onto some archaic sense of tradition and not adapt by allowing red-shirting, don't expect the rest of FCS to play be your rules. This proposal no more benefits the CAA then it does any other scholarship FCS conference that currently allows red-shirting (majority of FCS). I'm in favor of it and WM averages less than one scholarship FBS transfer a year.

This proposal is intended to benefit the student athletes. One of the main benefits, not mentioned directly in the article, is that this proposal would do away with difficult decisions over red-shirting and likely the need for the arbitrary medical redshirt application process. We've all seen true freshmen forced into action for two or three games at the end of a season becuase of a rash of late season injuries pre-maturely forced them into action. The proposal also takes away pressure to rush players back from injury to avoid burning another player's redshirt. It would allow true freshmen some limited exposure (i.e., special teams) in their first year without feeling like they are wasting eligibility. Like Laycock says in the article, hard to identify the downside of this proposal, which benefits the student-athletes first and foremost.

[WMTribe90]

I don't see it solely as an academic issue as much as well as one of cost. Absent scholarships, that's a financial aid commitment to cover more students with the same budget.

And why not six? Or if a student gets into law school, seven? Four years is usually fine. Remember, it was once three.

There is no increase in cost under this proposal. FCS schools will still be limited to 63 scholarhips. Even for the PL schools, your roster size would remain the same if you went to five years of eligibilty, each incoming class would just be a little smaller (roughly 20 recruits per year instead of 25).

And, no one is talking about increasing to six or seven years. We are only talking increased eligibility at the vast majority of FCS schools. Most players are on the team for five years regardless, under this proposal they would be eligible to play for 5 of 5 years instead of 4 of 5 years at no increased cost to the program. Given the demands of being a full time student and DI athlete, I don't consider 4.5 or 5 years an unreasonable amount of time to graduate with a degree.

Again, if the PL wants to keep to four years and take exams using typewriters that's their business, just don't see why the rest of us (including some excellent academic schools) should be held hostage to the PL's unrealistic sense of nostalgia/tradition.

[DFW HOYA]

Again, if the PL wants to keep to four years and take exams using typewriters that their business, just don't see why the rest of us (including excellent academic schools) should be held hostage to the PL's unrealistic sense of nostalgia.

Remember, it's the PL you're talking about, the league that can't decide whether to even take a vote on scholarships, or doesn't push for a league-wide TV contract because it wouldn't be fair to the two schools that already have their own deals.

[WMTribe90]

Remember, it's the PL you're talking about, the league that can't decide whether to even take a vote on scholarships, or doesn't push for a league-wide TV contract because it wouldn't be fair to the two schools that already have their own deals.

I agree, the PL would likely never approve this. I just don't think PL policies should dictate what the rest of FCS can do to the benefit of the student athletes.

[RichH2]

The article, if a bit one sided, presents a well thought out description of the FCS 5 for 5 legislation. True, very unlikely that PL or IL would favor such a move for their leagues. As a practicle matter will surely help FCS schools limited to 63 schollies over 4 years. Less downside if you can keep them active particularly with injuries. It is disingenuous to believe that the second major impact will not be more transfers from FBS schools to FCS. No opinion whether this is a good or bad thing ,just that it will happen. Kids will just have to decide earlier whether , if they are not happy, to transfer across FBS and lose a year sitting or go FCS and pick up an additional year of eligibility. Gee, its almost like FCS using FBS to train some kids for a yr or 2 then move them to FCS.

[WMTribe90]

The article, if a bit one sided, presents a well thought out description of the FCS 5 for 5 legislation. True, very unlikely that PL or IL would favor such a move for their leagues. As a practicle matter will surely help FCS schools limited to 63 schollies over 4 years. Less downside if you can keep them active particularly with injuries. It is disingenuous to believe that the second major impact will not be more transfers from FBS schools to FCS. No opinion whether this is a good or bad thing ,just that it will happen. Kids will just have to decide earlier whether , if they are not happy, to transfer across FBS and lose a year sitting or go FCS and pick up an additional year of eligibility. Gee, its almost like FCS using FBS to train some kids for a yr or 2 then move them to FCS.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way an FBS player could gain an extra 5th year of eligibilty by transfering to a FCS school would be if he played as a true freshman at the FBS program. Otherwise, nothing changes, the FBS player that red-shirts his freshmen year and then decides to transfer to a FCS school would still only have four years of eligibility left at the FCS school, same as before. How many players play as true freshmen at FBS schools? Of those how many end up transferring to FCS? Maybe one a year? These guys are more likely to jump early to the NFL or use their red-shirt year to transfer to another FBS school if they are unhappy with the original choice.

[McTailGator]

TRANSFERING has nothing to do with this. And you can RedShirt a Kid in ANY year of their 5 year NCAA Clock.

They have 5 years to play 4.

And to transfer, you must state your intentions to do so prior to October of your JUNIOR eligability year unless you transfer to another school after your senior season to work on your Masters. And you still have only 4 years in that 5 year clock.


No added costs as schools will pay a scholarship for 5 years if they hold a player our as a Freshman. I know that McNeese tries to redshirt as many players as they possibly can so they can gain experience and grow up.

McNeese has had a lot of 5 year seniors in the past when we were winning playoff games. We have returned to that policy again, and it should start paying off for us this year.