There is a new "hot" proposal that is being backed by the NCAA president to give student athletes 5 years of eligibility instead of 4. It would dramatically change the landscape of college sports. I guess the argument is most college students take 4.8 years to graduate, and this would increase the graduation rate of student atheletes. Opinions?
no, the best will still go pro after 2 years anyway unless that rule changes as well. as for the others, if they are going to fail they are going to fail. one more year wont change anything.
Frankly, I hope they DO change it to 5 years. A sport, any sport, is essentially a full-time job the the student athlete. The average student is taking close to five years to get a degree, and most only work part time if at all. Why should we expect fantastic grades AND a four year degree out of a student/athlete that we wouldn't expect out of an average student? Give these kids a little bit of a break, for cryin' out loud!
It also doesn't punish kids who start as freshmen. THe redshirts get the extra year to learn and train with the team. THe freshmen get 4 years and done. I assume with 5 years of playing eligibility that redshirting will no longer be needed or allowed. Another advantage is that for schools like us in the MAC where depth can be an issue later in the season as injuries accrue, we don't burn a year of eligibility by needing a key position player for one game, who was redshirted for that year. All of our players can be used as needed. One more year of playing means one more year of experience, physical growth, and skill development. This means that marginal players may become exceptional players by draft time and get a shot at playing NFL ball.
THe only potential downside to this would be that many NCAA records would be in jeopardy with the extra year of stats tacked on and we'll probably see a lot of this:
*Record achieved with 5 years of eligibility
I also think it'd be a good thing. Roster management would get easier, and guys who are now redshirted would still have that first-year carrot of playing time to help keep them on track academically.
Schadenfreude Wrote:I don't like it.
Well, let's hear why. Does it just strike you as not a good idea or have you just not formulated your arguments against such a move?
I don't oppose this proposal but I'd like to see the rationale put forth by its sponsors. Regardless, the way to improve graduation rates is to impose punitive sanctions on schools that don't graduate their players. That's been suggested by numerous people and it wouldn't be difficult to implement.
scatchie38 Wrote:There is a new "hot" proposal that is being backed by the NCAA president to give student athletes 5 years of eligibility instead of 4. It would dramatically change the landscape of college sports. I guess the argument is most college students take 4.8 years to graduate, and this would increase the graduation rate of student atheletes. Opinions?
<a href='http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/160843-4842-036.html' target='_blank'>Coaches want a 5th year</a>
I don't see any discussion on the expansion of scholarship numbers so I expect this is a revenue neutral situation. The same amount of money would be spent on fewer people.
MUther Wrote:Schadenfreude Wrote:I don't like it.
Well, let's hear why. Does it just strike you as not a good idea or have you just not formulated your arguments against such a move?
I dunno. I just don't like it, and I can't explain it.
If kids redshirt, they get five years to complete a degree, anyway.
Why not just require everyone to redshirt?
Schadenfreude Wrote:MUther Wrote:Schadenfreude Wrote:I don't like it.
Well, let's hear why. Does it just strike you as not a good idea or have you just not formulated your arguments against such a move?
I dunno. I just don't like it, and I can't explain it.
If kids redshirt, they get five years to complete a degree, anyway.
Why not just require everyone to redshirt?
Because sometimes you recruit to fill immediate needs. Players quit, get permanently injured, etc. Requiring a redshirt would mean being forced to go JUCO and that shouldn't be a requirement.
Schadenfreude Wrote:MUther Wrote:Schadenfreude Wrote:I don't like it.
Well, let's hear why. Does it just strike you as not a good idea or have you just not formulated your arguments against such a move?
I dunno. I just don't like it, and I can't explain it.
If kids redshirt, they get five years to complete a degree, anyway.
Why not just require everyone to redshirt?
I'm against it. 4 years is plenty.
Yes I agree with Schadenfreude, if they are so concerned about graduating kids the NCAA should reinstate the manditory freshman redshirt.
I also agree that four years is plenty.
This is probably a ploy by the BCS coaches to keep possible defectors (or any good recruits) from leaving/dismissing their school for mid-majors on the grounds of playing time.
Schadenfreude Wrote:MUther Wrote:Schadenfreude Wrote:I don't like it.
Well, let's hear why. Does it just strike you as not a good idea or have you just not formulated your arguments against such a move?
I dunno. I just don't like it, and I can't explain it.
If kids redshirt, they get five years to complete a degree, anyway.
Why not just require everyone to redshirt?
If a player plays right away, he only gets 4 years (assuming he doesn't redshirt later) to complete his degree, and the only way to finish your schooling after that (on scholarship) would be to become a student coach or grad assistant, and those are generally people going for post-grad degrees and the numbers are severely limited.
Also, it helps coaches with roster management. If 3 WRs go down with injuries, you can play a true frosh for the last 3 games without the concern of removing their redshirt, thereby shortening their college life. It seems like an easy decision for a coach, but it's a difficult decision for the kid that had already counted on completing their schooling in 5 years.
<a href='http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1836701' target='_blank'>http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1836701</a>
This AP story implies that the rule would only be for basketball and that "it'll be good for the mid-majors".
I read somewhere else that the player would lose a year of eligibility if he/she transferred. If true, that is a bit worrisome. A student could be trapped at a school fearing what a loss of a year's eligibility would mean (now you have to sit out a year, but you keep your entire 4 years of eligibility, or whatever you have left, with you if you move on).
The story hasn't convincedme that the plan is for the benefit of the players. Sounds more like it's a coaches plan for job security (not necessarily a bad thing).
UB1977 Wrote:I read somewhere else that the player would lose a year of eligibility if he/she transferred. If true, that is a bit worrisome. A student could be trapped at a school fearing what a loss of a year's eligibility would mean (now you have to sit out a year, but you keep your entire 4 years of eligibility, or whatever you have left, with you if you move on).
I don't see it as worrisome - if you transfer now you lose a year but basketball players don't redshirt as much in basketball so more often than not that off year becomes their redshirt year. In this case, you'd still sit out a year, but you're still on campus 5 years (somewhere!)