5 years for 5 seasons

[wfduck]

NCAA may possible change to giving studnet athletes 5 years to complete 5 seasons of elgibility, which would end and redshirts or medicalreds. NCAA report on the radio said this could happen by fall of 2007.

[coloradobison]

NCAA may possible change to giving studnet athletes 5 years to complete 5 seasons of elgibility, which would end and redshirts or medicalreds. NCAA report on the radio said this could happen by fall of 2007.

What? :-?

[MplsBison]

Is this just for football or all sports?

I like the idea overall.


It gives kids five years to play and more importantly, five years to go to school.


For those who have done it, having the luxery of taking a four year (120+ credit) program in 9 or 10 semesters is a big help. No athlete should feel over pressured with a 18 credit course load and a full inseason schedule.



The only thing I don't like about it is the no medical redshirt part. If you get hurt, it's not your fault. You should be able to get a one year waiver. IE, 5 years of eligibility in 6 years time (or even 11 semesters time).



Would kids be grandfathered in or would all athletes immediately be given an extra year? What about those students who are scheduled to graduate in spring 07? That would suck if they graduated thinking their time was up but then found out that they actually could've got another season in!

[Trimmy]

5 years in the same sport? You gotta be kiddin' me!

Me no likey.

[mikelsch]

The current system isn't broke - don't try to fix it

[wfduck]

this is a story about the topic from a few months back. BUT heard on ESPN radio yesterday that it is picking up steam and may happen next year

_______________________________________
By JEFF MILLER / The Dallas Morning News

A proposal to allow five years' eligibility for Division I-A and I-AA football players will be among the items addressed at the annual NCAA convention, which will run today through Tuesday in Indianapolis.

Few Division I legislative decisions have been made at the convention since the NCAA scrapped the one-school, one-vote format at that level nine years ago. Instead, members are invited to comment on proposals with the division's 50-member management council, which decides what should be submitted to the 17-member board of directors for voting in April.

The football eligibility proposal is the brainchild of the Football Issues Committee. It contends athletes should play for five years since most stay in school that long by taking a redshirt year and because the average football player in Divisions I-A and I-AA takes 4.8 years to graduate.

The proposal would eliminate redshirting as well as hardship waivers for injury or any other medical reason.

SMU athletic director Jim Copeland, who was a member of the committee in recent years, said he can't guess the proposal's chance of advancing.

"I don't have a sense for the politics there," said Copeland, who lost his committee position last year when SMU changed conferences. He noted that difficulties often arise when something is proposed for only one sport.

Britton Banowsky, Conference USA commissioner and a member of the management council, said critics of the proposal say it would discourage players who could graduate in four years from doing so. But athletes in other sports who graduate in fewer than four years often stay in school and take graduate-level courses in order to use all of their eligibility, he said.

Division I will have one old-fashioned paddle vote in a rare recall of a rule adopted in April. The rule, scheduled to go into effect next fall, would increase scholarships in four women's sports – gymnastics, soccer, track and volleyball – to provide more opportunities for women.

The smaller schools in Division I contend that they can't afford the additional scholarships and that their recruiting pool would shrink with larger schools able to sign more athletes. They froze the legislation in June when 116 schools called for a vote of the full division membership in Indianapolis.

Other proposals of note would:

• Decrease a perceived advantage for warm-weather baseball programs. The proposals would cut the number of games, delay the start of the season and shave time from fall practice beginning with the 2008 season.

• Eliminate the so-called one-time exception for baseball transfers that allows them to play without sitting out a year, as football and basketball players do. It's intended to slow the volume of baseball transfers.

• Change the deadline for informing an athlete that his scholarship status will change or end for the following school year. Instead of a uniform deadline of July 1 for all sports, athletes would learn much sooner and have more time to decide whether to transfer.

• Inform athletes in writing that they can appeal a change in their scholarship status. Current legislation lacks anything that formal.

• Increase Division I-AA football's regular season to 12 games beginning next season, as Division I-A recently did.

Also, the Division I academic performance committee plans to determine a cutoff for academic success in connection with new penalties for teams that are habitual classroom underachievers. The four levels of penalties – a warning, recruiting cuts, competition restrictions and a loss of membership – are scheduled to go into effect next fall.

E-mail jmiller@dallasnews.com

[tony]

I don't think this is much of a radical idea. In DI, unlike DII, I'm almost certain that you only get five years to use up four years of eligibility (unless you get a waiver). Anyway, it's not eliminating the redshirt year; it's replacing it with an extra year of eligibility.

[wfduck]

I knew I saw/heard something recently: this from The Sporting News--Matt Hayes
_______________________
Inside Dish


The five for five idea--five years to play five seasons with no redshirt year--is picking up steam among some key BCS coaches. But the proposal must be sponsored by a conference (preferably, a BCS conference) to gain footing with the NCAA rules committee, and no conference wants to sponsor a rules change proposal it knows could be defeated. Still, a sponsored proposal could be submitted by the July deadline and voted on in January 2007. . . .

[MplsBison]

The current system isn't broke - don't try to fix it


The current system is broke.


Star athletes like Frick, C. Dahl, Washington, etc. who are good enough to play their true freshman years shouldn't be punished by only being allowed to be with the team for four seasons.



The only thing I don't like about the 5 for 5 deal is the elimination of medical redshirts. If you get hurt it's not your fault.

[Scooter]

The current system isn't broke - don't try to fix it


The current system is broke.


Star athletes like Frick, C. Dahl, Washington, etc. who are good enough to play their true freshman years shouldn't be punished by only being allowed to be with the team for four seasons.



The only thing I don't like about the 5 for 5 deal is the elimination of medical redshirts. If you get hurt it's not your fault.

You have a point, I like this five for five deal.

*One thing troubles me, though. *Would some atheletes who bennifit from being redshirted the first year (getting used to college accedemics and life) have a harder time adjusting that first year do to the competitive pressure some coaches may feel to squeeze as much playing time out of every athelete that they can?

[wfduck]

You have a point, I like this five for five deal.

One thing troubles me, though. Would some atheletes who bennifit from being redshirted the first year (getting used to college accedemics and life) have a harder time adjusting that first year do to the competitive pressure some coaches may feel to squeeze as much playing time out of every athelete that they can?
[/quote]


that's the part i really struggled with. you could literally ruin some kids mentally by putting them into the mix before they are ready. the pressure of HAVING to perfomr as a freshman on coaches/players etc. may not be a good thing at all. I can personally attest to the benefit of the redshirt year, physically and more so MENTALLY. it's a huge change going from just about any HS to the college game.

[MplsBison]

This is the way I look at it:

if you're good enough to play as a true freshman, the team needs you whether you're mentally ready or not. You'd likely play regardless if the rule is 5 in 5 or 4 in 5.

Simply, the 5 in 5 rule allows you to graduate and spend 5 years with your signing class instead of graduating with the class before you.


If you're not ready to play as a true freshman, then you simply won't play.

I don't see how that's much different than a redshirt.

[tony]

Hmm, I don't think there is any added pressure into putting a kid into the line-up before he's ready. If there is, that's a problem with a coach, not a rule. After all, some kids might not be ready until they are sophomores, juniors, or seniors.

In the old system, if a coach put a kid in before he or she was ready, they'd be chewing up a year of the student's eligibility. This way, coaches can give kids some game reps as true freshmen - maybe when the game is over - without eating up any of their eligibility. Sounds like more fun for everybody. How much fun is getting put into the line up as a true fresham, playing a couple of downs per game, and then losing your best potential year because of it - and then having no schollie while you finish up your last year of college?

Here are some examples:

Ramon Humber - played as a true freshman and actually played quite a fair bit for a freshman, he used up an entire year of eligibility for 17 tackles. With this new rule, he could play a fifth year.

Tyler Roehl - got injured during the offseason, had to take a redshirt and still only gets to play four years. In this proposed deal, he could have played last year as soon as he was ready and gotten more playing time, not less.

To me this seems like a decent compromise between two positions:

Position 1: We want to let kids play five seasons in six years if one of those years is a redshirt.
Position 2: We want kids to play four seasons in five years (the way things are right now)

I just don't see how anybody loses anything under this proposal - that's why it is almost doomed to failure. It makes sense.

If somebody can come up with a scenario in which students lose any eligibility versus the current system, that'd be one thing, but I'm sure not seeing it.

[Scooter]

Hmm, I don't think there is any added pressure into putting a kid into the line-up before he's ready. If there is, that's a problem with a coach, not a rule. After all, some kids might not be ready until they are sophomores, juniors, or seniors.

In the old system, if a coach put a kid in before he or she was ready, they'd be chewing up a year of the student's eligibility. This way, coaches can give kids some game reps as true freshmen - maybe when the game is over - without eating up any of their eligibility. Sounds like more fun for everybody. How much fun is getting put into the line up as a true fresham, playing a couple of downs per game, and then losing your best potential year because of it - and then having no schollie while you finish up your last year of college?

Here are some examples:

Ramon Humber - played as a true freshman and actually played quite a fair bit for a freshman, he used up an entire year of eligibility for 17 tackles. With this new rule, he could play a fifth year.

Tyler Roehl - got injured during the offseason, had to take a redshirt and still only gets to play four years. In this proposed deal, he could have played last year as soon as he was ready and gotten more playing time, not less.

To me this seems like a decent compromise between two positions:

Position 1: We want to let kids play five seasons in six years if one of those years is a redshirt.
Position 2: We want kids to play four seasons in five years (the way things are right now)

I just don't see how anybody loses anything under this proposal - that's why it is almost doomed to failure. It makes sense.

If somebody can come up with a scenario in which students lose any eligibility versus the current system, that'd be one thing, but I'm sure not seeing it.

All of your points are valid, tony. *However, the highlighted part of your post is what I am struggling with. *No other job at a university is more performance driven than a coaching position and it directly affects a coaches salary. *Money can seriously compromise a coaches judgement. *All these rules that are in place were not put there to control the coaches with integrity, it's to reign in the other guys. *Hell, you don't have to go any farther than the regulations for recruiting for college sports.

Sure, there are bennefits. *And, I actually I like this rule. *The part I do like is that all the kids in a particular class will have the opportunity to stay together. *I like your compromise position. *Maybe this one would work as well, *Five years to play five years with a medical hardship exemption clause.*

[reality]

I have to say that this proposed rule does not sit well with me. I do not understand the point here. Why should the athlete be allowed/have the option for 5 years of play? What good would it do??

The only reason to add another year would be to give the athlete time to adjust to the college game, and that is already done with the redshirting process.

[Scooter]

I have to say that this proposed rule does not sit well with me. *I do not understand the point here. *Why should the athlete be allowed/have the option for 5 years of play? *What good would it do?? *

The only reason to add another year would be to give the athlete time to adjust to the college game, and that is already done with the redshirting process. *


Go back and read tony's post regarding guys that have to use up a year of elligibility for just a few appearences their true freshman year. *They lose out on basically, a year of good production. *That's the biggest arguement for this that I can see. *

I'd post his exact words, but, if you don't have to work for it, how are you going to learn? :)

That my friends, is reality to me. ;)

[MplsBison]

reality,

you're not attempting to make any sort of argument.

Are you going to tell us why the current system is better?


As I have already said and will say it again: players should not be penalized for being ready to help the team their true freshmen year.
Teams need second teamers to go into the game from time to time, and as it was pointed out in Humber's case, he lost an entire season for a true freshman season as a backup getting 14 tackles.

That's utter BS. Humber should be a senior in 2008! Not 2007!