Don't get the coaches wanting 5 yr eligibility?

G

GT Ace

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Messages
1,853
I see their argument, but the present systems seems to have many more pluses than the 5 yr eligibility route. Heck, most college Fr aren't ready for the speed of college ball anyway & really need the RS yr to better prepare to contribute. If he's not ready, just rs him & u've got your 5 yrs. It appears that college HCs want this rule for the single purpose of keeping the player who is good enough for college football, but not good enough for pro ball, playing the college game an extra yr.
Like I said, I don't get it.

http://sports.bostonherald.com/college/football/view.bg?articleid=1003139
 
I think the whole notion stinks. Some numbnutt somewhere's got his head in his ass. Totally stupid brain dead sort of idea.

Keep me posted.
 
Most Tech people are very solidly against this...

Because they think that if it were implemented, we
would somehow have to allow Reggie another year.
;)
 
It's simple - they don't want to have to agonize over redshirting decisions. With the 5-year system they can play freshman as much or as little as they like without thinking about it.

I'd rather see things go the other direction myself, back to the days of freshmen ineligible and 3 years of varsity time after that, but I know there's zero chance of that happening.
 
Assuming 85 schollies per year over 10 years I need to staff 850 man-years. If every player played 4 years then I need to recruit 212.5 players over 10 year period.

If every player played 5 years then I only need to recruit 170 players over the same period.

Don't have to fart with the redshirting business.
 
Re: Most Tech people are very solidly against this...

gtownjacket said:
Because they think that if it were implemented, we
would somehow have to allow Reggie another year.
;)
Click to expand...
UGAy fans would definitely get a kick out of that!
 
ramblinwise1 said:
Assuming 85 schollies per year over 10 years I need to staff 850 man-years. If every player played 4 years then I need to recruit 212.5 players over 10 year period.

If every player played 5 years then I only need to recruit 170 players over the same period.

Don't have to fart with the redshirting business.
Click to expand...
With that much trickle down effect (~44 less players per school every 10 years :: ~4 less players per year), the mid majors and smaller D1 schools would really benefit - potentially bringing more parity to the sport.

The SAs would not benefit - tougher competition for fewer scholarships. But when has the NCAA ever really considered the SA in any decision.
 
I don't think it would have near that effect contact. The guys who are good enough would go pro anyway and you'd still have to recruit more players. Don't know what the percentages might be, but the truth would be somewhere between the 212.5 and 170 in rw1's post. My guess is probably closer to 200.
 
ncjacket said:
I don't think it would have near that effect contact. The guys who are good enough would go pro anyway and you'd still have to recruit more players. Don't know what the percentages might be, but the truth would be somewhere between the 212.5 and 170 in rw1's post. My guess is probably closer to 200.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand that the scenario would be worst case (if the current proposal goes into effect) but even with your estimate of 200 fewer schollies over 10 years (3 per year per team) there will be a pretty significant trickle down.

I also wonder if some schools like GT, Wake, mid majors, etc will have a "BYU" effect. By that, I mean BYU benefits from most of its players going on their 2-year missions. There is still a lot of body development going on at that age. Like you said, the elite level players will still head to the NFL after 3 or 4 years so the teams with less attrition (the non-football factory schools) will be playing with more physically developed athletes which should counter the teams with younger, more skilled players.
 
chan has also stated that it simplifies planning for recruiting, since the redshirt factor tends to throw the numbers into more peaks and valleys.

also, for schools like GT where it frequently takes 5 years to graduate, there exists the potential for the future in this scenario that the NCAA links progress toward graduation as compared to the comparable student body over whatever applicapable period of time up to 5yrs.
 
BuzzCzar said:
also, for schools like GT where it frequently takes 5 years to graduate, there exists the potential for the future in this scenario that the NCAA links progress toward graduation as compared to the comparable student body over whatever applicapable period of time up to 5yrs.
Click to expand...

Ah, good thought...I think it's a decent idea. Bobby Dodd hated the scholarship limitations, b/c he felt that if you offer a scholarship to a kid, you should honor it until he graduates, not until his football usefulness has run out. This could help that. Either this, or a mandatory freshman redshirt, with 4 years after that.

How would this affect other sports? Would we have 5 years eligibility for basketball (like that matters), gymnastics, golf, and baseball?
 
MatatoGT said:
Ah, good thought...I think it's a decent idea. Bobby Dodd hated the scholarship limitations, b/c he felt that if you offer a scholarship to a kid, you should honor it until he graduates, not until his football usefulness has run out. This could help that. Either this, or a mandatory freshman redshirt, with 4 years after that.

How would this affect other sports? Would we have 5 years eligibility for basketball (like that matters), gymnastics, golf, and baseball?
Click to expand...

The way I heard it, he didn't like the conflict between yearly scholly limits and total scholly limits. At the time we left the SEC, a new rule allowed something like 100 scholarship players but 40 new schollies a year. This rule was clearly abused by schools like Bama who would basically hold tryouts for their freshmen.

Things could also be much different for Tech now if Bear Bryant showed up to that meeting about whether to let Tech back in to the SEC. IIRC, Dodd thought Tech had the votes with Bama letting us back in, but Bear Bryant for some reason didn't show up.
 
4 years that don't expire

How would you feel about doing away with redshirts and simply giving everyone four years of eligibility that never expire? For example, I never played college sports; but as I understand my eligibility has long since expired. What if you played two years of ball, left school for ten years and then could come back and play two more years if you so desired, if it was all on your dime who cares? Would it be detrimental to college athletics if Gathers got healed and came back for one year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top