New AFCA Proposals

[HookedonGriz]

These are pretty interesting:

1) Early signing period in December
2) A new eligibility 5 for 4 model. If an athlete plays less than four games in a season, they can redshirt.
3) A 10th paid assistant coach

#2 is the most interesting one IMO. Basically, you could play a freshman or other player for 3 games and then still redshirt them. An interestimg proposal for sure.

 

[BWahlberg]

These are pretty interesting:

1) Early signing period in December
2) A new eligibility 5 for 4 model. If an athlete plays less than four games in a season, they can redshirt.
3) A 10th paid assistant coach

#2 is the most interesting one IMO. Basically, you could play a freshman or other player for 3 games and then still redshirt them. An interestimg proposal for sure.

Is the 10th paid assistant coach for FBS only or for all levels?

 

[kyle_sample]

These are pretty interesting:

1) Early signing period in December
2) A new eligibility 5 for 4 model. If an athlete plays less than four games in a season, they can redshirt.
3) A 10th paid assistant coach

#2 is the most interesting one IMO. Basically, you could play a freshman or other player for 3 games and then still redshirt them. An interestimg proposal for sure.

Is the 10th paid assistant coach for FBS only or for all levels?

Just FBS

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

These are pretty interesting:

1) Early signing period in December
2) A new eligibility 5 for 4 model. If an athlete plays less than four games in a season, they can redshirt.
3) A 10th paid assistant coach

#2 is the most interesting one IMO. Basically, you could play a freshman or other player for 3 games and then still redshirt them. An interestimg proposal for sure.

Can you play them in playoff games, and still red shirt???

 

[grizcountry420]

These are pretty interesting:

1) Early signing period in December
2) A new eligibility 5 for 4 model. If an athlete plays less than four games in a season, they can redshirt.
3) A 10th paid assistant coach

#2 is the most interesting one IMO. Basically, you could play a freshman or other player for 3 games and then still redshirt them. An interestimg proposal for sure.

Can you play them in playoff games, and still red shirt???

I'm pretty sure this only applies if the player gets injured..

 

[HookedonGriz]

These are pretty interesting:

1) Early signing period in December
2) A new eligibility 5 for 4 model. If an athlete plays less than four games in a season, they can redshirt.
3) A 10th paid assistant coach

#2 is the most interesting one IMO. Basically, you could play a freshman or other player for 3 games and then still redshirt them. An interestimg proposal for sure.

Can you play them in playoff games, and still red shirt???

I'm pretty sure this only applies if the player gets injured..

Incorrect, here is the verbiage from the article:

"The proposed rule would make normal redshirts more like medical redshirts, allowing a player to play a certain number of snaps and still be eligible to redshirt.

Such a change would allow true freshmen to get snaps during the season, in bowls or non-conference games for instance, without losing a year of eligibility.

Many people were in favor of the proposed change."

 

[grizcountry420]

These are pretty interesting:

1) Early signing period in December
2) A new eligibility 5 for 4 model. If an athlete plays less than four games in a season, they can redshirt.
3) A 10th paid assistant coach

#2 is the most interesting one IMO. Basically, you could play a freshman or other player for 3 games and then still redshirt them. An interestimg proposal for sure.

Can you play them in playoff games, and still red shirt???

I'm pretty sure this only applies if the player gets injured..

Incorrect, here is the verbiage from the article:

"The proposed rule would make normal redshirts more like medical redshirts, allowing a player to play a certain number of snaps and still be eligible to redshirt.

Such a change would allow true freshmen to get snaps during the season, in bowls or non-conference games for instance, without losing a year of eligibility.

Many people were in favor of the proposed change."

Interesting.. I dont know how i feel about that change.

 

[behappp]

Can you play them in playoff games, and still red shirt???

I'm pretty sure this only applies if the player gets injured..

Incorrect, here is the verbiage from the article:

"The proposed rule would make normal redshirts more like medical redshirts, allowing a player to play a certain number of snaps and still be eligible to redshirt.

Such a change would allow true freshmen to get snaps during the season, in bowls or non-conference games for instance, without losing a year of eligibility.

Many people were in favor of the proposed change."

Interesting.. I dont know how i feel about that change.

It makes the rule much more crystal clear. Wouldn't have to obtain permission from NCAA on a medical redshirt. And we know what a kind, generous, thoughtful that organization is. :roll:

 

[HookedonGriz]

Can you play them in playoff games, and still red shirt???

I'm pretty sure this only applies if the player gets injured..

Incorrect, here is the verbiage from the article:

"The proposed rule would make normal redshirts more like medical redshirts, allowing a player to play a certain number of snaps and still be eligible to redshirt.

Such a change would allow true freshmen to get snaps during the season, in bowls or non-conference games for instance, without losing a year of eligibility.

Many people were in favor of the proposed change."

Interesting.. I dont know how i feel about that change.

I'm with you. I have mixed feelings. Seems coaches are pretty much for it because they don't want one or two snaps to make it a season for a freshman. But I think it could be a slippery slope

 

[Pin2Win]

I'm pretty sure this only applies if the player gets injured..

Incorrect, here is the verbiage from the article:

"The proposed rule would make normal redshirts more like medical redshirts, allowing a player to play a certain number of snaps and still be eligible to redshirt.

Such a change would allow true freshmen to get snaps during the season, in bowls or non-conference games for instance, without losing a year of eligibility.

Many people were in favor of the proposed change."

Interesting.. I dont know how i feel about that change.

I'm with you. I have mixed feelings. Seems coaches are pretty much for it because they don't want one or two snaps to make it a season for a freshman. But I think it could be a slippery slope

It may actually hurt FCS recruiting vs. lower tier FBS recruiting. Some freshmen are ready to come in and compete right away, more often at speed/skill positions. The FBS quality ones may look at FCS as opportunity to play right away and be done in four years. With the incentive that now they could participate in all 5 years, it gives another little carrot for FBS. Redshirt the year without actually having to sit the entire season, especially if the bowl game is on the table.

 

[Sam A. Blitz]

I could be wrong, but I think 1 and 2 would be for all NCAA schools, including FCS. #2 would be a real benefit tho FCS schools that may not have the depth FBS schools have. It really helps in instances where you might have injuries at a position and would be allowed to use True Freshman as a stop gap until you get players back. Also makes sense from a safety perspective in maybe sitting an injured player instead of having them played injured because of a lack of replacements.

The December signing date makes less sense to me given that it might provide a disadvantage to teams who are preparing for playoff games or bowl games. I'm sure that the 10th assistant coach might allow for more teams to have a full time recruiter. That might provide an advantage to mid-major FBS programs competing against FCS programs.

 

[mtgrizrule]

The December signing period is stupid. February is perfect. Hell, one could argue that it should be moved back. Teams playing deep into the post season are at a disadvantage in contacting recruits, as it is.

 

[Grizfan-24]

There is a ton of support for a re-structuring of the signing day. From administration (compliance), college coaches and high school coaches there are a myriad of reasons to move away from the one signing day in February.

Here are some of the things that I have heard over the past few years...

1. From an administrative standpoint, the signing date because of new interpretations of early enrollment, juco transfers and transfers make it difficult to navigate because it comes after the start point of many schools. Having an earlier or an early signing date will help separate current academic year recruits (transfers especially and juco kids) from those who will enroll the following year.

Would also simplify the rules surrounding recruiting. Dead Periods, Quiet Periods, Contact stuff. It is a nightmare to regulate, just talk to compliance people. Basketball recruiting rules as well as baseball are a bit different, and a bit simpler to navigate. At least from a high school coaches perspective. I think you need a degree in particle physics to navigate college recruiting rules, and the more you simply and decrease incentives to break those rules the better you are.

2. Coaches at both levels (a rather vocal group) don't like the signing day hype and believe it has jumped the shark. Many would like to de-emphasize the theatric nature of the event. Great for fans, but hard on coaches, players and parents.

3. Allows college coaches and high school coaches to secure kids and avoid the pitfalls of verbal here and then flip on signing day. Allows kids to develop feel for schools, and delay their commitment to make better decisions. I doubt that they follow the November/April model that basketball/baseball does, but having multiple signing days does take the pressure off of the month of January and spreads it out. Heard from a few college coaches that January brings out the worst in college coaches and families.

4. From a players perspective, there is significant pressure to make decisions that arent in your best interest. There is some support for a late junior year LOI because some parents, players and coaches want to avoid the nature of fall/winter recruiting for football. That creates more problems than it likely solves but the emphasis on recruiting back to Freshman in high school and making offers is a bit perverse.