Football coaches renew call for 5-year eligibility

[Mike80]

I didn't see this posted yet....I attached a poll to guage whether or not BP members think this is a good idea or not.....

Football coaches renew call for 5-year eligibility

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) -- The move to 12-game schedules in college football has revived a proposal that would extend player eligibility to five years.

The NCAA football issues committee, led by Nebraska athletic director Steve Pederson, has requested that the proposal be discussed at the spring meetings of Division I football-playing conferences. Even if the idea gains traction, it would have to go through several NCAA committees before a membership vote.

"We'll run it up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes it," said former Baylor coach Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association.

The NCAA's leadership has taken no position on the proposal because it is still preliminary, spokesman Bob Williams said.

"If a certain community feels change needs to be made within the structure of eligibility, then they propose it and it works through the process. The membership decides after that," Williams said.

Pederson said the football issues committee would weigh feedback from conference meetings before deciding whether to pursue legislation.

Barry Alvarez, Wisconsin's athletic director and former football coach, said he likes the proposal because it creates more team depth. But Alvarez fears it would limit opportunities because fewer roster spots would open each year.

Under current rules, student-athletes in all sports generally have five years to complete four years of eligibility.

Football scholarship reductions in the 1990s fueled the initial call for five years of eligibility. Administrators shot down the proposal, mainly because it separated football from other sports and ran counter to the traditional four-year academic cycle.

Teaff pointed out that it's now the norm for college students to take more than four years to finish degrees.

It's doubtful the scholarship limit would ever increase, Teaff said, yet the standard schedule has increased to 12 games and the possibility exists for a playoff system.

Though major programs are allowed 85 scholarships, attrition and redshirting can leave them taking the field with significantly fewer scholarship players, Teaff said.

 

[OmahaBeef]

I'm not really sure what I think of it honestly. It would definately be different. Could you imagine hearing the term "6th year senior" (for kids who redshirt in a five year eligibility system). haha, idk somethign about that just doesnt seem right.

 

[Mike80]

I'm not really sure what I think of it honestly. It would definately be different. Could you imagine hearing the term "6th year senior" (for kids who redshirt in a five year eligibility system). haha, idk somethign about that just doesnt seem right.

That'd be very odd, and you'd also have 24 year old men playing against 18
year old kids really....

I think that if they want to go to this type of system, they would need to require all 5th year guys to be enrolled in some sort of post-graduate program so that there won't be any "undeclared" 5th year seniors.

That and I think if they enact this, they'll end up putting the scholarship requirement at 100 or so.

I don't think this is a very good idea right now.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Teaff pointed out that it's now the norm for college students to take more than four years to finish degrees.

That's why you have redshirts.

Though major programs are allowed 85 scholarships, attrition and redshirting can leave them taking the field with significantly fewer scholarship players, Teaff said.

Even if you redshirt 19 players, you have enough scholarship players (66) to go 3-deep in every position on both sides of the ball.

 

[Napoleonbuck]

I thought the idea was if you move to five years of eligibility, you would also eliminate the redshirt(I guess you would leave the medical one though).

I think it should be 100 scholarships and five years of eligibility with no regular redshirts.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Re: "We'll run it up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes it," said former Baylor coach Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association.

(Almost) anything that will increase the gradualtion rate is a good idea.

 

[Zurp]

I didn't see it explained in the article (although, I simply skimmed it, rather than read it), but every explanation I've ever seen about this rule change says that there would be no redshirts. Medical redshirts, perhaps, but no "normal" redshirts. You get 5 years. That's it. If you play all five years, then great. If not, oh well.

At first, I was unsure about it. It could open the door for a decent running back to get to a school that is thin at running back, and have him play significantly as a freshman and sophomore. Then, as a junior, he really steps up, but, for whatever reason, he's not NFL-quality, yet. As a senior, again, he plays well but still isn't ready for the NFL. He can come back for his fifth year, and break all the records, despite not being much of a player, compared to some of the all-time greats.

It's a little hypocritical of me, I know, since I am not in favor of reverting back to the "old" style of scheduling, when they used to play 9-10 games a season, or disallowing freshmen to play. I'm sure there were people worried about the records when they expanded the season to 11 games, and then 12, and then adding bowl games to the records stats. And when freshmen were allowed to play, that was adding a year to the statistics. (Although - maybe it was just a short time that freshmen were not allowed to play - not sure on that one).

But here's why I'd like to change my vote from "not sure" to "in favor" of the fifth year:

(Almost) anything that will increase the gradualtion rate is a good idea.

I'm not sure what a gradualtion is, but I like the idea of the rate being high. I can see how a player might have played his first four years (too good as a freshman to redshirt), but he's not ready to graduate, yet, after four years, and he's not fit for the NFL (maybe he's an option-style quarterback, or something). As he might come from a low-income family, he can't afford another year of school. He's kinda screwed. Giving him his fifth year of eligibility gives him a fifth year to try to graduate.

 

[exhawg]

I thought the idea was if you move to five years of eligibility, you would also eliminate the redshirt(I guess you would leave the medical one though).

I think it should be 100 scholarships and five years of eligibility with no regular redshirts.

That's the way I've always taken it. You have 5 to play 5 rather than 5 to play 4 like it is now. My freshman year my team only played 6 O-Linemen because 7 and 8 were freshmen and they didn't want to blow our redshirts. Looking back I only was able to play in one game each of the next two seasons because of injury problems so it would have been easy to redshirt me then. Coming from a small school I like the 85 scholarship limit to help with parity, but when I have kids I'd rather have a limit of 100 to increase the odds of my kid getting a scholarship.

 

[IronBuckI]

The parity argument isn't an issue, IMO, if the schollie count is only increased from 85 to 100. It still works out to 20 schollies per year, and that's right around the average that we have available every year anyway.