|
|
Ms St AD has suggested that athletes get 5 years of eligibility. No RS, just 5 years to play. I think this would be a great for smaller schools and athletes that more than likely won't play at the professional level. I don't know what the cost effect would be as far as keeping kids on scholarship an additional year or the effects on roster size but it is an interesting idea.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foot...ity-fifth-year
Most of the top talent are gone in 3 years, it would give the competitive advantage to mid level schools who can promise 5 years to 3 star athletes.
How many athletes would stay for grad school and play that extra year? A higher degree and an extra year of polish hopefully in a system you already know might be what some guys need to earn a shot at the next level.
If the scholarship limit remains the same, that would be good for Tech and other G5 schools.
There is always a catch and the bigboys would never let us catch a break for free. This could go the other way by allowing teams to stockpile talent like they use to do in the ole days.Originally Posted by HoDo-Tech70
I'm no longer worried about this. Then can't keep the guys they get. See Sokol, Bates, Driskel etc. If a guy doesn't play he moves on. They could change the rules to prevent this,of course.
The biggest risk would be if they applied transfer rules to those that have graduated and want to go to graduate school at another university - like you stated with your examples.
They are already whining about it, but I don't think they will do away with a rule that can only help a graduate better himself and the school he is leaving has to sign off on it. They have all signed off with the only stipulation being no transfers to another conference school.
I read an article last week about the QB at Eastern Washington who has been their starting QB the last 3 years is transferring to Oregon. The coach at Eastern Washington wasn't very happy about it. He told him he couldn't use the weight room at EWU since he was transferring. http://espn.go.com/college-football/...r-oregon-ducks
I think the 5 years playing rule would be okay if you didn't play in 50% of your games in one year. DT Mickey Johnson is transferring from LSU after he graduates in the summer. He didn't enroll in LSU until January because he had to take 2 courses at his high school in the fall to be elligible which means he was a grayshirt in 2011. He played in one game in 2012 for only a few plays and did not have any stats. If he had not played in that one game, he would have 2 years to play instead of just one. Miles blew a whole year of eligibility for him against Idaho which was a blowout.
I understand why he's not happy, but it works both ways. They take FBS transfers (who don't even have to have graduated to play if they drop a level).
That one is a really odd situation because they play Oregon right off the bat next season. I can see why you wouldn't want him around your practices, but banning him from the weight room etc seems a little punitive to me (although it could be a liability issue - if he isn't going to be their player). Seems like 2 years of winning might have earned him a little slack.
But that's the beauty of the 5 years to play period rule that he's proposing (as opposed to 5 years to play 4 that we have now).
It's like my Hermeneutics professor who gave a curve rather than try to quibble over a point here and a point there. If you wanted to argue every little deduction on a paper, he could always say "fine, we can discuss this point and maybe you get that one point, but then I'll stop giving the curve and you'll lose 8 or 9 or 10 points in exchange for that one."
Right now schools/players are in the quibbling over details stage. It's 5 years to play 4 unless you can appeal based on this or that. If they just made it a blanket 5 years period, play don't play, redshirt, don't redshirt, you get 5 years to play college football it takes that aspect away. If you get hurt in 2 of those years, that's a shame, but you still get the other 3 automatically. It would take some of the guesswork out of the process.
I wonder if Rivals will go back and give Adams some stars. He didn't have any when he was being recruited out of high school.
If this 5 year rule came in, players should still have the opportunity to appeal for an extra year if they get hurt in TWO seasons using the current hardship criteria. The current first hardship year would be covered with the extra year for everyone.
Or they could change that rule, too.
If they bumped the total up to 5 to play 5, I'd be ok with that. Just a flat 5 years of eligibility whether you make it into a game or not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
