Big 12 commish proposes no redshirt, 6 years eligibility

[snp]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3405784&campaign=rss&source=NCFHeadlines

Most students take more than 4 years to graduate now (took me 6). I'm all in favor of this.

[RedstickSooner]

Sounds like they're requesting it solely for football -- and that really makes their arguments sound hollow.

If they were serious, they'd request it for all sports. By not doing so, they certainly give the appearance of wanting to treat the cash cow with kid gloves.

Personally, I think a five year limit for all sports makes sense. Graduating in four years isn't for everyone.

[Scott D]

5 year with no redshirt makes sense, 6 year should have redshirt.

[soonermix]

5 year with no redshirt makes sense, 6 year should have redshirt.

agreed

[yermom]

last time i heard about this it was 5 years with no more redshirting, medical or otherwise

[Paperclip]

What would this do to transfers? I guess they'd lose a year without being able to use their redshirt year to do it?

[Scott D]

well it'd create an interesting paradox with the NCAA. Somewhat like when the Big East experimented with a NBA like 6 foul rule for league play. It really made things difficult for those teams to readjust when it came tournament time. Needless to say, that got scrapped after a year or two.

[Collier11]

5 yrs with no RS would be ok 4 me

[swardboy]

Probably overshooting by going for six years so he can "compromise" and get five.

[royalfan5]

It would be interesting to see if this would make the non-BCS schools tougher as they would be more likely to retain 5 year players, as legit NFL prospects would be less apt to stay an extra year of playing and risk injury for a 5th year.

[goingoneight]

So you have...

n00bs (mandatory redshirt year, this year does NOT count toward being draft eligible)
freshmen
sophs
juniors
seniors
super-seniors

[soonerfan28]

I don't understand the benefit of this. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't see the benefit. Somebody help me compehend this. Other then season long injuries I don't get it.

[royalfan5]

I don't understand the benefit of this. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't see the benefit. Somebody help me compehend this. Other then season long injuries I don't get it.

It helps schools who have **** up head coaches who burn redshirts for a handful of plays, and then when that coach is fired, the new coach wouldn't have lost years of eligibility for key players that played one series in game two years ago because the previous head coach didn't understand the college game.

[snp]

Where did the 6 come from? The article talks about 5 years eligibility.


I don't understand the benefit of this. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't see the benefit. Somebody help me compehend this. Other then season long injuries I don't get it.

Instead of redshirting, you can play that season. Players can remain hapoy and get more meaningful experience. Bradford could've gotten some reps for PT in 2006. Walker and Hartley would be returning next year. Q would have been around for the 2003 team, etc etc.

The season long injuries will usually go through an appeal to the NCAA for a medical RS - something this article doesn't address.

I could also see the benefits in getting true freshman more reps on special teams. Most freshman aren't ready to comprehend all the schemes that the coaches throw at them. But most can probably handle covering a couple kicks a game. By allowing them to play in ST and get used to the speed of the game it will help accelerate their growth.

[soonerfan28]

I see now. I guess I had never thought of players actually playing for 5 years.

[Scott D]

Where did the 6 come from? The article talks about 5 years eligibility.

psst, it's in the topic title you posted. :)

[yermom]

last time i heard about this it was 5 years with no more redshirting, medical or otherwise

now that i actually read the article, that's what it sounds like ;)

last time i think Bobby Bowden was talking about it with the 12 game regular season

[KingBarry]

Can somebody correct the title on this?

WHO BENEFITS?

PLAYERS -- let's say three categories --

1. guys that now would go pro early (no benefit for them)
2. guys that now would play four years and have no pro prospects (they'd get to stay in football another year and get another year of free edumacation)
3. guys that would now have sit out a redshirt year (they would get to play, mostly insignificant minutes). Wait a minute. I thought the fact that a player got to take a year to get used to the college experience without the pressure of football, to concentrate on his studies, etc, was a BENEFIT of redshirting. In others words, these players would actually be worse off. Of course, if they enjoyed the extra playing time and travel time to away games, etc. they MIGHT come out ahead.

These benefits are mostly marginal, and remember, the players that get to stay another year would just push out an incoming freshman that would have gotten the vacant scholarship.

I think this is just an attempt to shore up how thin teams are today, where just one injury just squashes a team down the stretch.

I think the real answer to that is offer more freaking scholarships.

[snp]

psst, it's in the topic title you posted. :)

Yea but I could've swore I put 5.