Now that the P5 conferences are beginning to consider rule changes, I have one to suggest that would not cost any school anything.

Under current rules, NCAA athletes (whether or not they are on scholarship) have four years of eligibility in their sport, which they must complete within five years of their initial enrollment. My proposal is that this be changed, at least for the revenue sports, to five years of eligibility within six years. For the student, this does two things. For the marginal student, who is going to struggle in the classroom, it lets him spread his coursework out longer, improving his chances of earning a meaningful degree. For the good student, capable of earning a bachelor's degree in four years or less, it gives him an opportunity to also earn a graduate degree at no cost to him.

For the schools, there is also an impact. They get 25% more playing time from the athletes they have invested so much time in recruiting and coaching. Such a change would greatly improve parity, especially in football. The very top programs, the ones who can recruit the five star and top four star kids, will still be able to get their stars. Now, they get to keep the very best for three years before they jump to the pros. Those early departures only cost the school one year without their services. Under the new rule, it would cost them two. And now, the schools with lesser talent who rely on seniors and fifth year seniors, will have more experienced players on their roster to compete against the more talented, but much younger, opposition.

Is this worth considering?

I'm not sure that autonomy would allow the P5 to make this change. Someone more familiar with the bylaws could confirm this.

If it's not something the P5 can simply change, moving to a 4 in 6 model (two redshirt years) might be preferable to G5 schools. Since many kids RS their 1st year on campus, many students are reluctant to transfer to a G5 school by the time they're a junior or senior. With a bonus RS year, you might see a spike in transfers to the MWC and AAC, for instance.

(01-19-2015 11:08 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  I'm not sure that autonomy would allow the P5 to make this change. Someone more familiar with the bylaws could confirm this.

If it's not something the P5 can simply change, moving to a 4 in 6 model (two redshirt years) might be preferable to G5 schools. Since many kids RS their 1st year on campus, many students are reluctant to transfer to a G5 school by the time they're a junior or senior. With a bonus RS year, you might see a spike in transfers to the MWC and AAC, for instance.

Wouldn't the G5 be even more likely to support this change? They aren't the schools with a lot of early departures. They would become more competitive at no extra cost.

I do think this change would probably have to be considered in conjunction with transfer rules as well as the new "guaranteed scholarship" rules recently passed over some serious objections (the most cogent of which were made by players, not coaches or ADs).

There may be an issue regarding being a full time student under that scenario. All NCAA athletes must be full time students.

(01-19-2015 11:21 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  There may be an issue regarding being a full time student under that scenario. All NCAA athletes must be full time students.

Under current rules, an athlete must pass 6 credit hours each semester, and a total of 18 credits in the fall and spring semesters combined, and a total of 24 credit hours each year (including summer school). For a football player, those minimums add up to 126 credits by the end of your sixth season. Isn't that pretty close to a typical graduation requirement?

I like the idea of allowing graduate students an extra year or even two of eligibility. That would be huge for a lot of student-athletes that don't necessarily have pro sports careers ahead of them. There are fewer sources of financial aid available to graduate students and encouraging students to pursue advanced degrees is something the NCAA, the conferences and schools should all support. I'd also be in favor of dropping the requirement that athletes must stay at their undergraduate institution if the degree they are pursuing is offered. There are lots of reasons for a student to change schools when going for a graduate degree and restricting students to one school is counter-productive. Another worthwhile change would be to drop the requirement that an athlete must get a waiver from their current school in order to transfer. There are too many examples of vindictive coaches or ADs derailing a student's athletic and academic career for no good reason.

(01-19-2015 11:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 11:21 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  There may be an issue regarding being a full time student under that scenario. All NCAA athletes must be full time students.

Under current rules, an athlete must pass 6 credit hours each semester, and a total of 18 credits in the fall and spring semesters combined, and a total of 24 credit hours each year (including summer school). For a football player, those minimums add up to 126 credits by the end of your sixth season. Isn't that pretty close to a typical graduation requirement?

So taking 6 credits during the football season and then need to take 18 in the next semester...that is quite a heavy load to makeup if allowed.

Random example Univ of Portland requires 120 credits to graduate.
4 years = 15 credits/semester
5 years = 12 credits/semester (which is what the minimum is to consider a full time student)

Over 6 years drops it down to 10 credits/semester which is considered PT status. Which is why the rules are set over a 5 year period.
I believe the Federal Financial Aid is what determines FT vs PT status so you'll need to have the feds change the rules. Which is why you can't take only 6 credits 1 semester and then 18 the next semester....unless you are paying for the school yourself.

(01-19-2015 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Now that the P5 conferences are beginning to consider rule changes, I have one to suggest that would not cost any school anything.

Under current rules, NCAA athletes (whether or not they are on scholarship) have four years of eligibility in their sport, which they must complete within five years of their initial enrollment. My proposal is that this be changed, at least for the revenue sports, to five years of eligibility within six years. For the student, this does two things. For the marginal student, who is going to struggle in the classroom, it lets him spread his coursework out longer, improving his chances of earning a meaningful degree. For the good student, capable of earning a bachelor's degree in four years or less, it gives him an opportunity to also earn a graduate degree at no cost to him.

For the schools, there is also an impact. They get 25% more playing time from the athletes they have invested so much time in recruiting and coaching. Such a change would greatly improve parity, especially in football. The very top programs, the ones who can recruit the five star and top four star kids, will still be able to get their stars. Now, they get to keep the very best for three years before they jump to the pros. Those early departures only cost the school one year without their services. Under the new rule, it would cost them two. And now, the schools with lesser talent who rely on seniors and fifth year seniors, will have more experienced players on their roster to compete against the more talented, but much younger, opposition.

Is this worth considering?

I think the kids are going to get extra time (as in lifetime) to finish their degree from P5 schools. Its already been proposed.

(01-19-2015 01:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 11:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 11:21 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  There may be an issue regarding being a full time student under that scenario. All NCAA athletes must be full time students.

Under current rules, an athlete must pass 6 credit hours each semester, and a total of 18 credits in the fall and spring semesters combined, and a total of 24 credit hours each year (including summer school). For a football player, those minimums add up to 126 credits by the end of your sixth season. Isn't that pretty close to a typical graduation requirement?

So taking 6 credits during the football season and then need to take 18 in the next semester...that is quite a heavy load to makeup if allowed.

Random example Univ of Portland requires 120 credits to graduate.
4 years = 15 credits/semester
5 years = 12 credits/semester (which is what the minimum is to consider a full time student)

Over 6 years drops it down to 10 credits/semester which is considered PT status. Which is why the rules are set over a 5 year period.
I believe the Federal Financial Aid is what determines FT vs PT status so you'll need to have the feds change the rules. Which is why you can't take only 6 credits 1 semester and then 18 the next semester....unless you are paying for the school yourself.

Athletes on a full scholarship aren't getting federal financial aid, are they? So they don't necessarily need to conform to federal financial aid rules. Though they may need to meet their school's own minimum for a full-time courseload.

(01-19-2015 01:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 11:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 11:21 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  There may be an issue regarding being a full time student under that scenario. All NCAA athletes must be full time students.

Under current rules, an athlete must pass 6 credit hours each semester, and a total of 18 credits in the fall and spring semesters combined, and a total of 24 credit hours each year (including summer school). For a football player, those minimums add up to 126 credits by the end of your sixth season. Isn't that pretty close to a typical graduation requirement?

So taking 6 credits during the football season and then need to take 18 in the next semester...that is quite a heavy load to makeup if allowed.

Random example Univ of Portland requires 120 credits to graduate.
4 years = 15 credits/semester
5 years = 12 credits/semester (which is what the minimum is to consider a full time student)

Over 6 years drops it down to 10 credits/semester which is considered PT status. Which is why the rules are set over a 5 year period.
I believe the Federal Financial Aid is what determines FT vs PT status so you'll need to have the feds change the rules. Which is why you can't take only 6 credits 1 semester and then 18 the next semester....unless you are paying for the school yourself.

That isn't the way the rule reads. For a football player, you can take 6 credits in the fall, 12 credits in the spring and 6 credits in summer. You only need to take more credits in fall and spring if you don't want to take any in summer. By any standard, that's a very manageable load. If that's more than you can handle, you shouldn't be in a D-I school to begin with.

(01-19-2015 11:08 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  I'm not sure that autonomy would allow the P5 to make this change. Someone more familiar with the bylaws could confirm this.

If it's not something the P5 can simply change, moving to a 4 in 6 model (two redshirt years) might be preferable to G5 schools. Since many kids RS their 1st year on campus, many students are reluctant to transfer to a G5 school by the time they're a junior or senior. With a bonus RS year, you might see a spike in transfers to the MWC and AAC, for instance.

There is an area of autonomy that allows for the concept of academic redshirting, but no rules have been proposed in that regard as of yet. It could happen.

(01-19-2015 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Athletes on a full scholarship aren't getting federal financial aid, are they? So they don't necessarily need to conform to federal financial aid rules. Though they may need to meet their school's own minimum for a full-time courseload.

Yes many are. To cover the other expesnes currently not covered by scholarships. Now this may not be necessary going forward, but it is as of now.