• 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

Well-known member
Some very interesting rule changes are expected to be put on the table between the Coaches' Association and the NCAA. (Quite a bit of discussion on the web, but I've not seen a thread about it here.)
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...low-players-four-games-losing-redshirt-status

"Adam Rittenberg said:
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A proposal that would allow players to appear in up to four games without losing their redshirt status received "unanimous support at all levels" during this week's American Football Coaches Association convention, director Todd Berry said Wednesday.
Personally, I’m not sure they can, or should, try for four games … but I can see the NCAA agreeing to a couple.
Berry cited the fact that scholarship limits have been reduced and the schedule has expanded since redshirt rules were first adopted, putting schools in potentially problematic situations late in seasons …
Not sure when the redshirt rules came into use. Could not find any dates with a quick search, but from this I assume they go way back. Also, I’m not sure about the late season part … as I recall, medical redshirts aren’t allowed if the player is able to play later in the season.
Berry said there was some discussion of making the rule retroactive as well, though the current ACC proposal does not include that caveat.
If they do change the rule, it seems only fair that they make it retroactive … at least for players currently on a roster.

The coaches also want a review of the targeting/ejection rules, transfer rules, and some others.
 
Interesting. If the four games were the first four games of the season, wouldn't that be somewhat similar to basketball?

I can see the benefit. Give a kid a chance to compete but if it becomes obvious waiting a year would be beneficial, they can still make that call.
 
grzz said:
Interesting. If the four games were the first four games of the season, wouldn't that be somewhat similar to basketball?

I can see the benefit. Give a kid a chance to compete but if it becomes obvious waiting a year would be beneficial, they can still make that call.
Very good point. The four-game idea is for football, which I'm not sure the NCAA will agree to. For the big boys, who regularly do 12 regular season games, that's a third of the season. I'm thinking two or three games (one-sixth or one-quarter of a football season). For basketball, where 25-30 games is common, that number could go to 4-6 ... which would be a good "live" test of a player's ability to compete.
 
This thing abounds with spin and outright BS; just an example:

"He also said that data suggests players struggle more academically and emotionally during a redshirt season, and the prospects of late-season playing time could have a positive impact."

Huh? A for imagination....
 
kemajic said:
This thing abounds with spin and outright BS; just an example:

"He also said that data suggests players struggle more academically and emotionally during a redshirt season, and the prospects of late-season playing time could have a positive impact."

Huh? A for imagination....
Could not agree more!

What is this "data" they refer to? Most likely non-existent.

Sure, there may be a few cases where it might relieve a hardship. But the reality is, this is just a way for them to get an extra third of a season out of their players. That's why they want four football games: Anything less makes it harder to plan their little ploy. A staff could cover an entire season for a particular position using three "redshirt" players, and every one of them would still have four full years of eligibility left.

A stretch, you say? Not in my book. Suppose you had a senior running back whom you expect to carry most of your load. Plus, you have a couple good freshman and a soph at the RB position. You put all three on redshirt status, but each gets to be the "designated backup" to give your stud a breather in four games ... with no loss of overall eligibility. Anybody want to bet they haven't thought of this?
 
IdaGriz01 said:
kemajic said:
This thing abounds with spin and outright BS; just an example:

"He also said that data suggests players struggle more academically and emotionally during a redshirt season, and the prospects of late-season playing time could have a positive impact."

Huh? A for imagination....
Could not agree more!

What is this "data" they refer to? Most likely non-existent.

Sure, there may be a few cases where it might relieve a hardship. But the reality is, this is just a way for them to get an extra third of a season out of their players. That's why they want four football games: Anything less makes it harder to plan their little ploy. A staff could cover an entire season for a particular position using three "redshirt" players, and every one of them would still have four full years of eligibility left.

A stretch, you say? Not in my book. Suppose you had a senior running back whom you expect to carry most of your load. Plus, you have a couple good freshman and a soph at the RB position. You put all three on redshirt status, but each gets to be the "designated backup" to give your stud a breather in four games ... with no loss of overall eligibility. Anybody want to bet they haven't thought of this?


I believe the intent here has to do with late season injuries depleting a team's roster. Several kids wind up losing their redshirt season the last two, three, or four games of the year.

Also, it is hard on the kids going through their redshirt season which is usually their freshman year to all the sudden get relegated to maybe one or two scrimmages that year. Let them get some play time just for morale. I have a son who came close to quitting during his redshirt year.
 
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
IdaGriz01 said:
... Sure, there may be a few cases where it might relieve a hardship. But the reality is, this is just a way for them to get an extra third of a season out of their players. That's why they want four football games: Anything less makes it harder to plan their little ploy. A staff could cover an entire season for a particular position using three "redshirt" players, and every one of them would still have four full years of eligibility left.

A stretch, you say? Not in my book. Suppose you had a senior running back whom you expect to carry most of your load. Plus, you have a couple good freshman and a soph at the RB position. You put all three on redshirt status, but each gets to be the "designated backup" to give your stud a breather in four games ... with no loss of overall eligibility. Anybody want to bet they haven't thought of this?
I believe the intent here has to do with late season injuries depleting a team's roster. Several kids wind up losing their redshirt season the last two, three, or four games of the year.

Also, it is hard on the kids going through their redshirt season which is usually their freshman year to all the sudden get relegated to maybe one or two scrimmages that year. Let them get some play time just for morale. I have a son who came close to quitting during his redshirt year.
I'm sure you're right about the "depletion" motive. But I'm not buying the notion that four games (a third of a season) somehow "wouldn't count." That's why I actually like the idea ... just not for that many games. One or two, yes. But if you play a third of a season, particular during the late-season "home stretch" -- then that should count.

And if you think my three guys = one position filled for a year, then you maybe don't know coaches. They're all looking for "an edge." Not a Bill Belichick edge, maybe, but any edge they can get away with. Trust me, if they get the four games, someone will do exactly what I outlined.

As for point two. Everything I've read says the redshirts are totally part of the team, except for "live action." I guess I didn't realize these young men had such tender egos. But if so, a one or two game redshirt "allowance" should serve for morale purposes. Like I say, I'm generally in favor of the rule change ... just not to the extent of four games. (Of course, as usual, our opinion means zilch anyway ;) :lol: .)
 
IdaGriz01 said:
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
IdaGriz01 said:
... Sure, there may be a few cases where it might relieve a hardship. But the reality is, this is just a way for them to get an extra third of a season out of their players. That's why they want four football games: Anything less makes it harder to plan their little ploy. A staff could cover an entire season for a particular position using three "redshirt" players, and every one of them would still have four full years of eligibility left.

A stretch, you say? Not in my book. Suppose you had a senior running back whom you expect to carry most of your load. Plus, you have a couple good freshman and a soph at the RB position. You put all three on redshirt status, but each gets to be the "designated backup" to give your stud a breather in four games ... with no loss of overall eligibility. Anybody want to bet they haven't thought of this?
I believe the intent here has to do with late season injuries depleting a team's roster. Several kids wind up losing their redshirt season the last two, three, or four games of the year.

Also, it is hard on the kids going through their redshirt season which is usually their freshman year to all the sudden get relegated to maybe one or two scrimmages that year. Let them get some play time just for morale. I have a son who came close to quitting during his redshirt year.
I'm sure you're right about the "depletion" motive. But I'm not buying the notion that four games (a third of a season) somehow "wouldn't count." That's why I actually like the idea ... just not for that many games. One or two, yes. But if you play a third of a season, particular during the late-season "home stretch" -- then that should count.

And if you think my three guys = one position filled for a year, then you maybe don't know coaches. They're all looking for "an edge." Not a Bill Belichick edge, maybe, but any edge they can get away with. Trust me, if they get the four games, someone will do exactly what I outlined.

As for point two. Everything I've read says the redshirts are totally part of the team, except for "live action." I guess I didn't realize these young men had such tender egos. But if so, a one or two game redshirt "allowance" should serve for morale purposes. Like I say, I'm generally in favor of the rule change ... just not to the extent of four games. (Of course, as usual, our opinion means zilch anyway ;) :lol: .)

You have great insight as far as what a small college fan's thoughts on these issues amount to in the big picture. :clap:

This has been discussed by the Power 5 schools for several years and I like the idea. You have to remember the Division I schools can only have 85 kids on athletic scholarship (and yes, academic scholarships do not count against this number!) but why shouldn't some of these kids get to play on special teams, a blowout like Washington had against the Griz this year and all the other miss matched games throughout the year?

I also appreciate the Power 5 schools providing full cost of attendance. More and more the large schools are demonstrating their commitment to the educational aspect of the student athlete to include providing a more welcoming environment for their redshirts who for the most part are freshmen.
 
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
You have great insight as far as what a small college fan's thoughts on these issues amount to in the big picture. :clap:

This has been discussed by the Power 5 schools for several years and I like the idea. You have to remember the Division I schools can only have 85 kids on athletic scholarship (and yes, academic scholarships do not count against this number!) but why shouldn't some of these kids get to play on special teams, a blowout like Washington had against the Griz this year and all the other miss matched games throughout the year?

I also appreciate the Power 5 schools providing full cost of attendance. More and more the large schools are demonstrating their commitment to the educational aspect of the student athlete to include providing a more welcoming environment for their redshirts who for the most part are freshmen.
I'm confused. Is that first sentence meant as a compliment or a slam?

Because of the games normally shown on TV, we get to watch far more FBS football than we do FCS. And we have in-laws who are big fans in the SEC and Pac-12 (not so much Big Ten or Big 12). So we know more than a little bit (fan-wise) about Power 5 football. And, with degrees from San Jose State and New Mexico State, we know a little something about the FBS "have-nots" level.

As for having only 85 schollie to give out at the Division I (FBS) level. Well, Division I FCS schools (you do realize that FCS is also D-I?) only get 63, which they can divvie up among no more the 85 individuals. So they have an even bigger problem when late-season injuries begin to pile up.

As I've said several times, I do like the idea of letting redshirts play some live action without losing their redshirt status. I just don't think it should be as much as 4 games -- sixty years of watching/following college football tells me the potential for abuse is just too high.

The "cost of attendance" issue is (perhaps) related, but it's really a separate problem ... and I certainly have no good answers. Even if big-time athletes had the "spare" time to handle an outside job, NCAA rules make that virtually impossible. For example, a member of the band can start his own musical group and get paid for off-campus gigs. Could an athlete get paid for an off-campus job as a personal trainer or coach? I'm pretty sure they'd get in big trouble if they tried. That's simply not right ... although I know those rules are based on past abuses (phony, no-work jobs). But even if the problem is difficult, it's one that needs to be solved.

Beyond that, of course, the "cost of attendance" matter means something totally different between the "haves" (Power-5) and the "have nots." From the numbers I've seen, even the Power 5 schools (many/most of them) would not be able to afford full cost of attendance for all their athletes without a major restructuring of their finances. I guarantee that a (non-Power 5) SJSU could not afford anything close to a full cost of attendance approach, unless they could find a major, major source of new revenue. As I say, I have no magic answer ... but it's an issue that needs to be seriously address.
 
IdaGriz01 said:
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
You have great insight as far as what a small college fan's thoughts on these issues amount to in the big picture. :clap:

This has been discussed by the Power 5 schools for several years and I like the idea. You have to remember the Division I schools can only have 85 kids on athletic scholarship (and yes, academic scholarships do not count against this number!) but why shouldn't some of these kids get to play on special teams, a blowout like Washington had against the Griz this year and all the other miss matched games throughout the year?

I also appreciate the Power 5 schools providing full cost of attendance. More and more the large schools are demonstrating their commitment to the educational aspect of the student athlete to include providing a more welcoming environment for their redshirts who for the most part are freshmen.
I'm confused. Is that first sentence meant as a compliment or a slam?

Because of the games normally shown on TV, we get to watch far more FBS football than we do FCS. And we have in-laws who are big fans in the SEC and Pac-12 (not so much Big Ten or Big 12). So we know more than a little bit (fan-wise) about Power 5 football. And, with degrees from San Jose State and New Mexico State, we know a little something about the FBS "have-nots" level.

As for having only 85 schollie to give out at the Division I (FBS) level. Well, Division I FCS schools (you do realize that FCS is also D-I?) only get 63, which they can divvie up among no more the 85 individuals. So they have an even bigger problem when late-season injuries begin to pile up.

As I've said several times, I do like the idea of letting redshirts play some live action without losing their redshirt status. I just don't think it should be as much as 4 games -- sixty years of watching/following college football tells me the potential for abuse is just too high.

The "cost of attendance" issue is (perhaps) related, but it's really a separate problem ... and I certainly have no good answers. Even if big-time athletes had the "spare" time to handle an outside job, NCAA rules make that virtually impossible. For example, a member of the band can start his own musical group and get paid for off-campus gigs. Could an athlete get paid for an off-campus job as a personal trainer or coach? I'm pretty sure they'd get in big trouble if they tried. That's simply not right ... although I know those rules are based on past abuses (phony, no-work jobs). But even if the problem is difficult, it's one that needs to be solved.

Beyond that, of course, the "cost of attendance" matter means something totally different between the "haves" (Power-5) and the "have nots." From the numbers I've seen, even the Power 5 schools (many/most of them) would not be able to afford full cost of attendance for all their athletes without a major restructuring of their finances. I guarantee that a (non-Power 5) SJSU could not afford anything close to a full cost of attendance approach, unless they could find a major, major source of new revenue. As I say, I have no magic answer ... but it's an issue that needs to be seriously address.
Intended as a compliment. The other disparities? The wannabe conferences can choose to provide cost of attendance (as the two North Dakota schools are) or fade into small college football. Ultimately it's simply going to be a matter of taking care of the kids. The schools that demonstrate this the best are going to be the dominate athletic programs at all levels.
 
For something different to talk about (requested on another thread :) ).

Two ifs: IF the NCAA changes the rule so limited playing time does not "burn" a redshirt and IF they make the change retroactive ... Who on the Griz might benefit?
 
With all then injuries in football, why not just eliminate the logistics of redshirts, medical redshirts and give kids 5 years of eligibility to play football?
 
41GrizFan said:
With all the injuries in football, why not just eliminate the logistics of redshirts, medical redshirts and give kids 5 years of eligibility to play football?
Now you're making too much sense. ;)

But redshirt status applies to all NCAA sports where scholarships are allotted, including many that are non-contact or at least low-contact. The NCAA, and others, have studied sports injuries a lot. Across all sports, most injuries occur in practice ... except (no surprise) for football, where competition-related injuries were around seven times as frequent as practice injuries. Moreover, competition-related injuries were generally more severe. The bottom line on that is: Football injuries are far more likely to be season- (or career-) ending than in any other sport. (Men's wrestling, BTW, seems to be #2, but way down from football.)

The special status of football on most campuses already creates a lot of resentment ... giving them five years of eligibility would just add to that.

Conversely, giving five years to everybody is not necessary for most student-athletes. Worse yet, it would reduce the number of slots available to prospective students who needed the scholarship to be able to go to college. That is, every starter who hung around for that fifth year of eligibility (in track, soccer, or whatever) would be one less schollie to hand out to an in-coming student.
 
IdaGriz01 said:
41GrizFan said:
With all the injuries in football, why not just eliminate the logistics of redshirts, medical redshirts and give kids 5 years of eligibility to play football?
Now you're making too much sense. ;)

But redshirt status applies to all NCAA sports where scholarships are allotted, including many that are non-contact or at least low-contact. The NCAA, and others, have studied sports injuries a lot. Across all sports, most injuries occur in practice ... except (no surprise) for football, where competition-related injuries were around seven times as frequent as practice injuries. Moreover, competition-related injuries were generally more severe. The bottom line on that is: Football injuries are far more likely to be season- (or career-) ending than in any other sport. (Men's wrestling, BTW, seems to be #2, but way down from football.)

The special status of football on most campuses already creates a lot of resentment ... giving them five years of eligibility would just add to that.

Conversely, giving five years to everybody is not necessary for most student-athletes. Worse yet, it would reduce the number of slots available to prospective students who needed the scholarship to be able to go to college. That is, every starter who hung around for that fifth year of eligibility (in track, soccer, or whatever) would be one less schollie to hand out to an in-coming student.

Why would there be resentment? A lot of kids take more than 5 years to graduate.

Make the 5th year a non scholarship year. If they wanna come back to play so be it, but it would be on your own dime.
 
41GrizFan said:
IdaGriz01 said:
41GrizFan said:
With all the injuries in football, why not just eliminate the logistics of redshirts, medical redshirts and give kids 5 years of eligibility to play football?
Now you're making too much sense. ;)

... The special status of football on most campuses already creates a lot of resentment ... giving them five years of eligibility would just add to that.

Conversely, giving five years to everybody is not necessary for most student-athletes. Worse yet, it would reduce the number of slots available to prospective students who needed the scholarship to be able to go to college. That is, every starter who hung around for that fifth year of eligibility (in track, soccer, or whatever) would be one less schollie to hand out to an in-coming student.
Why would there be resentment? A lot of kids take more than 5 years to graduate.

Make the 5th year a non scholarship year. If they wanna come back to play so be it, but it would be on your own dime.
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.
 
It would be great, if Reese Phillips gets another year. I'd prefer him over Hill to fill out the QB depth this season Regardless of where Phillips is at, I wish him the best. The kid is a class act.
 
IdaGriz01 said:
41GrizFan said:
IdaGriz01 said:
41GrizFan said:
With all the injuries in football, why not just eliminate the logistics of redshirts, medical redshirts and give kids 5 years of eligibility to play football?
Now you're making too much sense. ;)

... The special status of football on most campuses already creates a lot of resentment ... giving them five years of eligibility would just add to that.

Conversely, giving five years to everybody is not necessary for most student-athletes. Worse yet, it would reduce the number of slots available to prospective students who needed the scholarship to be able to go to college. That is, every starter who hung around for that fifth year of eligibility (in track, soccer, or whatever) would be one less schollie to hand out to an in-coming student.
Why would there be resentment? A lot of kids take more than 5 years to graduate.

Make the 5th year a non scholarship year. If they wanna come back to play so be it, but it would be on your own dime.
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 a scholarship, why not? Do you prefer to give the schollie to a younger player who isn't as good.

Sorry, but you need to learn about football is you are going to post about it here.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?

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.
 
Back
Top