|
|
I see it working the other way. The P5 schools could keep the next level players by giving them the hope that they will play at least 2 or 3 years in the event those ahead of them leave for the pros. Promise them they have a better chance than the 1 and 2 year players because they will be in the system longer. And they'll take the bait hook, line and sinker.Originally Posted by KSDAWG
But why would we WANT to do this? I fail to see the advantages to anyone but the coaches. Clearly the coaches job will get easier if players end up with 5 years of eligibility, because there will be less turnover in personnel. But what's in it for the university? Seems to me it's just more coddling of our youth.......
The fans get to see their favorite players play for an extra year.
The school graduates more football players.
The players are better off.
What's the downside? There is nothing magically wonderful about the 5 years to play 4 rule.
I don't have a problem with that.
But for example if a football player gets a season-ending injury in the first half of a season playing 4 games or less TWICE, then they should have the chance to get a 6th year of eligibility...just like they are able to now.
If a player is red-shirted, then he has the opportunity to get his degree plus masters degree paid for. Numerous players take advantage of it and get it done. I just hope the system never goes to paying the college player.
“Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.”
Lou Holtz - Football Coach
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson
"Bring back the rotary phone so we don't have to press 1 for English."
www.casadice.com
No more guaranteeing no redshirt year or having to decide before the season whether a player will be good enough to contribute in November. If he earns playing time at some point during the season, there's no debate on burning the redshirt season.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
Did the guy who proposed this give a new number on roster limits or scholarship limits? Roster and 'ship limits would likely change. One advantage for the schools is that it would simplify things.
One of the old school guys can help, but before the current rules freshman were not allowed to play (I think) and that was not too long ago...back in the late 70s maybe?
Yeah, you're not sweating that late-game chance to get experience because you don't want to cost a redshirt over 6 plays of mop-up. You'd just put him in and let him get his feet wet, and if he only makes it on the field for those 6 plays that season, you haven't cost him (or you) anything.
I think he was just spit-balling in reaction to the Pac-12 and Big 10 looking at freshman ineligibility.
You could reduce the yearly scholarship limit to 20 and leave the 85 alone. Some of the power schools would push for raising the limit, but then everyone's got to add another women's sport (which isn't bad in itself, but gets expensive). And the lower halves of the P5 conferences don't want higher scholarship limits any more than the G5 schools do.
That would be nice for the players (and schools).
But I would really be ok with a flat out no exceptions 5 to play 5 rule.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...considering-it
Looks like things could go the other way instead.
There's obviously an additional cost associated with carrying EVERYBODY for 5 full years vs many players who'll get it done in 4 years and LEAVE. Also, now you'll have 5 full classes (instead of 4) fighting over the same 22 jobs. Again, you're carrying a lot more players, but still have only 22 starting positions (plus special teams) to offer.
Last edited by HogDawg; 02-20-2015 at 01:26 PM.
Only if they change the scholarship limit.
Otherwise it's the same. 85 scholarship players (and however many walk-ons you want) fighting for 22 jobs. And 85 scholarships per year to pay for either way (again, assuming no increase in the number of scholarships allowed).
Won't they likely raise the scholarship limit above 85, because they'll need to fill an extra (5th) class? Of course, that will in turn leave fewer quality recruits available for the G5's to recruit. The P5's will be one-step closer to going back to stockpiling athletes like they did before the 85 limit was imposed.
They would at first, but wouldn't those young kids get tired of waiting around to play and then see the next class come on, etc. They have problems keeping them for four years now. The transfer phenomenon has already set the tone. Promises to play later aren't worth anything if the coach moves on. If they really separate themselves from the rest of the NCAA and start doing this (stock piling players) I could see the G5 schools removing the one year waiting period. What are they going to do? Not play us.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
