• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Possible NCAA Rule Changes

IdaGriz01 said:
PlayerRep said:
IdaGriz01 said:
...
My statement about possible resentment was based on the assumption that five years of eligibility would go along with five years of scholarship support. Making the fifth year non-scholarship might address that issue, but
(1) student-athletes with limited financial resources of their own would not be able to use it, and
(2) the "carry-over" athletes would still take up team slots and make them unavailable for prospective new students. Good deal for the school since they could simply not use that number of scholarships. Bad deal for possible new student-athletes.
Please, if the kid is good enough to play and contribute, and deservies [sic] a scholarship, why not? Do you prefer to give the schollie to a younger player who isn't as good.[sic, ?]

Sorry, but you need to learn about football is you are going to post about it here.
Huh? Not sure what your beef is. I was commenting on the notion of making a fifth year of eligibility a non-scholarship option. While it's an interesting thought, I do not see that as a viable approach -- and it looks to me like we agree on that point.

But you just cannot resist getting in an extra dig, can you? Who made you the big football sheriff around here? And, BTW, the eligibility/scholarship situation is not just about football.

You seem to relish tossing casual insults at people you know absolutely nothing about. I'd make you a "Foe," except you do indeed offer useful insights now and then. FYI, while I never "played the game" -- at the collegiate level -- I do know a good deal about football ... no matter what your totally uninformed opinion may be. So why don't you give it a rest?

Don’t waste your time, Ida. I used to get angry about some of PR’s remarks. Now I just chalk them up to his mental health problems and pity him.
 
PlayerRep said:
... Look, you are the one who called me a prick for no reason. You of all people complaining about causal insults. That's pretty funny. You have been making edgy comments for years. Why don't you Foe me.
Yes, I did use the "p" word ... and also said later that I was wrong to do that. Would it make you feel better if I said I was "Sorry I did that"? Well, I'm sorry I used that word. Perhaps I will "Foe" you, but probably not.
 
Grizzoola said:
This redshirt business is BS. Just make each scholarship last 4 years. You're a true freshman, and you can play, you play. Simplifies everything, and gets rid of all the nonsense of the above.
A nice "purist" sentiment :lol:

But (1) it doesn't account for injuries and (2) more importantly, that ain't gonna happen.

Given the unanimity among the football coaches, I will be very surprised if they don't get at least part what they want from the NCAA. And, since the notion has been around for awhile (see comment earlier from "CatGrad-UMGradStu"), it could happen fairly soon, rather than the common NCAA answer: a "study."

It would not surprise me if the NCAA took a "graded" approach: Start with one or two game appearances allowed without burning the redshirt. See how that works out after a few (2-3?) years, and then perhaps extend it.
 
Yukon said:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FootballScoop/status/954101089158160384[/tweet]
All things considered, that comes as no surprise. (Would have been a bigger surprise if there was suddenly opposition to the change ;) ). I'll be interested to see if they go with a specific number, or some sort of "fraction of a regular season" method. Of course, they could restrict the rule change just to football -- since that sport has by far the highest frequency of competition vs practice injuries. But I would expect them to also change it for all sport, just to insure the support of the coaches in those other sports..
 
IdaGriz01 said:
I'll be interested to see if they go with a specific number, or some sort of "fraction of a regular season" method. Of course, they could restrict the rule change just to football -- since that sport has by far the highest frequency of competition vs practice injuries. But I would expect them to also change it for all sport, just to insure the support of the coaches in those other sports..

I believe currently this is just for football.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
IdaGriz01 said:
I'll be interested to see if they go with a specific number, or some sort of "fraction of a regular season" method. Of course, they could restrict the rule change just to football -- since that sport has by far the highest frequency of competition vs practice injuries. But I would expect them to also change it for all sport, just to insure the support of the coaches in those other sports..
I believe currently this is just for football.
Yep, that's the only discussion I've seen too. However, the real horse-trading doesn't begin until the NCAA fat-cats get together. It'll pass, but -- since it's the NCAA -- we can't be sure what "creative" notions they'll come up with. :)

For me the more interesting question: Will they make it retroactive, and if so, how much?
 
IdaGriz01 said:
PlayerRep said:
... Look, you are the one who called me a prick for no reason. You of all people complaining about causal insults. That's pretty funny. You have been making edgy comments for years. Why don't you Foe me.
Yes, I did use the "p" word ... and also said later that I was wrong to do that. Would it make you feel better if I said I was "Sorry I did that"? Well, I'm sorry I used that word. Perhaps I will "Foe" you, but probably not.

Just saw this. Hadn't noticed you saying it was wrong to use the word. No apologies necessary or wanted. But note that if you hadn't used the p word, or something similar, in that situation, our little spat in the other thread would never have occurred. All good now. Thx.
 
Next rule change is the transfer rule. Some of you may be old enough to remember when the kids on scholarship were limited to 85. That put an end to schools recruiting kids that would never get to play just because the real strong programs hoarded the players to keep them from other teams. Now certain schools are considering letting kids transfer to other schools so they get a better chance of playing. I think this will have the same impact at the collegiate level that Sam McCollom had with the NFL when he sued and won the right for free agency. Chris Long has been able to play for the Patriots and this year with the Eagles because of free agency. I think it's just a matter of time until they allow college athletes "free agency." If they are just a battering ram or tackling dummy in practice, let them transfer. High school kids are doing it all over the primary recruiting states.
Anything to help the kids as far as I'm concerned.
 
Back
Top