5 years of eligibility

[DudyDawg]

So Scott just tweeted this. What do yall think?

@stricklinMSU: Instead of making freshmen ineligible to play, I?d rather give every athlete five years of eligibility and do away with redshirting.

[thf24]

I don't think a lot would change as far as player contribution. Players who would have redshirted before still practically would, they'd just be able to get in on 10-15 garbage time plays their first year. There might be pressure to bump the scholarship limit up some too, which could hurt everyone outside of the traditional powerhouses.

[Jack Lambert]

I don't think a lot would change. Players who would have redshirted before still practically would, they'd just be able to get in on 10-15 garbage time plays their first year. There might be pressure to bump the scholarship limit up some too, which could hurt everyone outside of the traditional powerhouses.

I really don't want them to push the scholarships up. Thats how Bama and Ole Miss killed us back in the 50''s and 60's. That's all we need is Bama, LSU, Auburn and other big SEC schools to get more scholarships to take guys away from us. I think the 85 rule has done more to even the playing field than any other thing the NCAA has done.

[BiscuitEater]

So Scott just tweeted this. What do yall think?

@stricklinMSU: Instead of making freshmen ineligible to play, I?d rather give every athlete five years of eligibility and do away with redshirting.

Great for some, it would be a diaster for too many others with the current 85 limit. 25 x 5 years = 125

At the very least 40 would get cut, give up the game or have to transfer.

[DudyDawg]

For the record, I don't think either is reasonable. If a true freshman is good enough to play, play him. Can you imagine a Jahlil (sp?) Okafor not playing and wasting a year of his life and development?

[DudyDawg]

@stricklinMSU: Or, all freshmen are ineligible unless they reach certain HS academic standards. And then they get five years of eligibility as a reward.

[Johnson85]

So Scott just tweeted this. What do yall think?

@stricklinMSU: Instead of making freshmen ineligible to play, I?d rather give every athlete five years of eligibility and do away with redshirting.

Don't like it but I do wish they would relax the RS rules a little bit. Allow players to play in up to 6 different quarters without losing the ability to redshirt. I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of a redshirt year is supposed to be, but it seems like allowing a little bit of playing time wouldn't defeat the purpose and would also make it easier to keep some of the freshmen without the best foundation for college focused during their redshirt year.

[I seen it dawg]

Dumb

[War Machine Dawg]

Further proof we have an incompetent running our athletic department.

[thunderclap]

Further proof we have an incompetent running our athletic department.

I was wondering if I was the only one shaking my head at this.

[Westdawg]

i heard some of these mumblings behind closed doors for a couple years now. i think it is slowly being leaked out in order to get public support and/or feedback before deciding on how best to handle the situation. This is another move by the Power 5 to get what they want. Believe on this: there is going to be some changes to the redshirt/ineligible freshmen rules in the coming 12-18 months.

[War Machine Dawg]

I was wondering if I was the only one shaking my head at this.

Judging by the rest of the opinions in this thread, I'd say far from it. I hate having an AD that's still learning on the job.

[War Machine Dawg]

Don't like it but I do wish they would relax the RS rules a little bit. Allow players to play in up to 6 different quarters without losing the ability to redshirt. I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of a redshirt year is supposed to be, but it seems like allowing a little bit of playing time wouldn't defeat the purpose and would also make it easier to keep some of the freshmen without the best foundation for college focused during their redshirt year.

Completely agree. The whole idea of playing a single play destroying your RS year is bogus. Most schools find ways to get around it with the medshirt, but the NCAA has tightened up that loophole, too. I think 6 quarters would be ideal in terms of being able to play but still be eligible for a RS.

As for the purpose of a RS, my theory is that it has 2 purposes. 1) Allow freshmen who aren't physically ready to play the necessary time to develop their bodies without subjecting them to an unnecessary risk of injury and 2) ease the transition from HS to college academically. Let's face it, most of these guys got a ginormous pass academically in HS because football is apparently more important than life itself. They've never had to do shit in school and it's total culture shock that they're actually expected to do things like go to class, write papers, and pass tests.

[Quaoarsking]

Why is there such strong objection to this? I'd be glad to get rid of deciding whether or not its a good long-term plan to redshirt a player.

I sure wish we could've played Aeris at RB last year without worrying about whether it made him ineligible in 2018 or not

[Todd4State]

Why is there such strong objection to this? I'd be glad to get rid of deciding whether or not its a good long-term plan to redshirt a player.

I sure wish we could've played Aeris at RB last year without worrying about whether it made him ineligible in 2018 or not

If I'm reading it right, people are concerned that the 85 man scholarship limit would increase and therefore hurt us. I get that theory but I'm not sure if it's correct because the guys we redshirt count against the 85 currently. The only difference is they would get to play right away and for five years.

[smootness]

Why is there such strong objection to this? I'd be glad to get rid of deciding whether or not its a good long-term plan to redshirt a player.

I sure wish we could've played Aeris at RB last year without worrying about whether it made him ineligible in 2018 or not

It just doesn't make any sense logically. Why would you let everyone play an extra year?

Why stop there? Let's let them play as many years as they want.

Or let's let people play 6 years for a HS team if they want.

The system is not currently broken; I don't get why so many are trying to fix it. I definitely don't get his second tweet - if you don't meet certain standards, you play 3 years, but if you do, you play 5?

[Todd4State]

It just doesn't make any sense logically. Why would you let everyone play an extra year?

Why stop there? Let's let them play as many years as they want.

Or let's let people play 6 years for a HS team if they want.

The system is not currently broken; I don't get why so many are trying to fix it. I definitely don't get his second tweet - if you don't meet certain standards, you play 3 years, but if you do, you play 5?
At one point in time they used to not let freshmen play. I wonder if people in sports bars had the same conversation then that we are having now?

[smootness]

At one point in time they used to not let freshmen play. I wonder if people in sports bars had the same conversation then that we are having now?

There's no logical leap to allow freshmen to play. There is one to suddenly say, 'eh, let's just add an extra year.' There are 4 class years in college; there are not 5.

[Todd4State]

There's no logical leap to allow freshmen to play. There is one to suddenly say, 'eh, let's just add an extra year.' There are 4 class years in college; there are not 5.

To me it's less logical for the majority of football players to go to school for five years and only be allowed to play four. I would be willing to bet that the average college student goes to school for more than four years. The four classes thing doesn't really mean much. I was classified as a junior by my second year at MSU and was a senior about half the time. And I graduated in four years. If you count professional school I went to college six years all told.

[Quaoarsking]

There's no logical leap to allow freshmen to play. There is one to suddenly say, 'eh, let's just add an extra year.' There are 4 class years in college; there are not 5.

Actually, the average time it takes a student to get a degree at MSU and most other colleges is 5 years.

The majority of football players are on the team for 5 years anyway. Why not simplify things and let them play all 5 years? It would cut out the decision process of guessing whether or not it's worth it to play true freshmen

[Quaoarsking]

If I'm reading it right, people are concerned that the 85 man scholarship limit would increase and therefore hurt us. I get that theory but I'm not sure if it's correct because the guys we redshirt count against the 85 currently. The only difference is they would get to play right away and for five years.

Yeah I see no reason why the scholarship limit would increase. If anything it could decrease because teams wouldn't be locking up scholarships with guys not playing. Of course they wouldn't actually ever decrease the limit, so I would expect them to hold it.

[Todd4State]

Yeah I see no reason why the scholarship limit would increase. If anything it could decrease because teams wouldn't be locking up scholarships with guys not playing. Of course they wouldn't actually ever decrease the limit, so I would expect them to hold it.

Plus it's unfair to a guy that has to play because of injuries to the team and only gets in a couple of games, or you have a lame duck coach that decides he is going scorched earth and burns some redshirts because he is mad at the school. It makes it difficult for the coaches sometimes as well to make decisions that affect a players career down the line.

[smootness]

It just makes no sense. College is designed to have you graduate in 4 years. Obviously some people take longer, some get it done sooner, but that's what it's designed to do. Allowing a redshirt year was introduced to help the players who for one reason or another might not be ready, or might have something to work through.

I'd much rather them remove the redshirt year than have them able to play for 5. Again, once you break through the 4 years, then the college schedule means nothing, and now everything is on the table.

Some people take 9 years to graduate. Might as well just not put a limit. If you feel like getting everything paid for until you're 28, just keep playing college football. We have a 10th year QB.

Obviously I'm exaggerating to make a point, but once you decide the freshman-soph-junior-senior progression means nothing, you basically admit it has nothing to do with school anymore, and there is no rhyme or reason for any limits on anything.

[Quaoarsking]

But they're not proposing adding a new year. Players have had 5 years to play 4 for a long time. They're just considering changing that to 5 years to play 5. The 5-year clock is already a thing -- why make players sit out one of those 5 years?

[mic]

Dumb

Very dumb...

[Mutt the Hoople]

There are 4 class years in college; there are not 5.
Most universities have a curriculum that, unless you attend summer school, can only be completed in five years.

[smootness]

But they're not proposing adding a new year. Players have had 5 years to play 4 for a long time. They're just considering changing that to 5 years to play 5. The 5-year clock is already a thing -- why make players sit out one of those 5 years?

Right, but that's just a period of time given to get your 4 years in. They basically just added a buffer to help kids in certain cases. The line between actually playing 4 years and playing 5 is a huge line to cross.

They'll eventually add a redshirt 6th year once the 5 becomes ingrained, then since you're already there 6 years, why not let them play 6?

The 5th year wasn't added to allow kids to play another year. It was added to allow kids to still play the 4 in a case where they may not be ready or have an issue come up one year, etc. without losing a year of their career. If you don't like the idea of a year where they don't play, then take away the redshirt year.

[Todd4State]

I can't see them adding a sixth year since it's pulling teeth for a school to get a sixth year of eligibility currently. Five is pretty standard however. I think a lot of guys would declare for the NFL way before they got to a sixth year because if they want to play in the NFL, they would be 23-24 after year six going in and most NFL guys are done by age 30.

[smootness]

I can't see them adding a sixth year since it's pulling teeth for a school to get a sixth year of eligibility currently. Five is pretty standard however. I think a lot of guys would declare for the NFL way before they got to a sixth year because if they want to play in the NFL, they would be 23-24 after year six going in and most NFL guys are done by age 30.

Yeah, but 4 was standard before they added the 5th.

I guarantee you that once 5 became standard, someone would have a family crisis or something that caused them to miss a year. And everyone would claim it's unfair to make a kid miss a year of his college career over it. So they'd add an extra rule. Then you're back to the same argument - well, if a kid can be on the team for 6 years, why only let him play 5?

Everything changes once something becomes standard.

I've seen some say that they don't think the playoff will go to 8 teams because you never had people claiming 8 teams had a claim at the title. But once 4 is standard, the argument will emerge that 5 and 6 had a claim to be in. It's already starting.

If they go to 5 years, fine. I just don't see a good reason to do it. The 'they're already there' doesn't make sense because they only added the 5th to make it easier for guys to get 4 in.

[Todd4State]

Plus even if you are not ready, you can still contribute on special teams and in mop up duty against Alcorn. But because of the way the rules are, a player that does that loses a year of eligibility.

The other thing that no one is talking about is on gameday, you can only dress out a certain amount- I think 72- and the way it is now, of those that dress out, approximately 65 of those are on scholarship. I'm assuming that we redshirt 20 players as an estimate, and those 20 count against the 85. So, 85-20= 65 if you're wondering how I came up with my numbers, and they are all estimates.

So, it really wouldn't change much other than players wouldn't be penalized for playing.

[Todd4State]

Yeah, but 4 was standard before they added the 5th.

I guarantee you that once 5 became standard, someone would have a family crisis or something that caused them to miss a year. And everyone would claim it's unfair to make a kid miss a year of his college career over it. So they'd add an extra rule. Then you're back to the same argument - well, if a kid can be on the team for 6 years, why only let him play 5?

Everything changes once something becomes standard.

I've seen some say that they don't think the playoff will go to 8 teams because you never had people claiming 8 teams had a claim at the title. But once 4 is standard, the argument will emerge that 5 and 6 had a claim to be in. It's already starting.

If they go to 5 years, fine. I just don't see a good reason to do it. The 'they're already there' doesn't make sense because they only added the 5th to make it easier for guys to get 4 in.

That happens right now- players playing minor league baseball and going on Morman missions for example. They still only get the five years, they are just older. That wouldn't be handled any differently if I had to guess.

The playoff is irrelevant to this discussion.

[smootness]

But my point is that no one is penalized for playing now. That's just a way to frame the argument to make it seem like it's unfair to make a kid sit out.

You have 4 years. You used to only have 3. They let freshmen play, then they added the redshirt. They didn't even used to have the option of the extra redshirt year, but now it's unfair to make a kid lose it if he plays a little?

My point is that once it moves to 5, there's nothing stopping anyone, using the same logic, from calling for a redshirt 6th year. Then we're back in the same cycle - 'You're penalized and lose your redshirt if you play a few special teams snaps'.

You have to stop somewhere. 4 years makes sense for college and always has.

[smootness]

That happens right now- players playing minor league baseball and going on Morman missions for example. They still only get the five years, they are just older. That wouldn't be handled any differently if I had to guess.

The playoff is irrelevant to this discussion.

No, once you start your clock, it runs. If you play a year, then go on a mission, you only have 2 more years when you come back. But if you wait to start the clock, you still get the 5. So if a kid had already played, he would just lose a year.

[Todd4State]

I really can't see it going beyond five because of guys wanting to go to the NFL and coaches are going to have to process players out at some point because of the scholarship limits. So there is a mutual stopping point. And then there is the fact that you can sign 25 in a recruiting cycle.

[smootness]

I really can't see it going beyond five because of guys wanting to go to the NFL and coaches are going to have to process players out at some point because of the scholarship limits. So there is a mutual stopping point. And then there is the fact that you can sign 25 in a recruiting cycle.

I get that, but the only reason it's hard to see it going to 6 is because it's only 4 now. Once it's 5, going to 6 will be much easier to see. That's why I brought up the playoff.

Like the NCAA Tournament, going beyond 64 seemed insane when it was 32. But once it was 64, it's easy to see. And some have even called for 128. These things happen incrementally because it's the way the human mind works. Nobody would have ever thought there was a reason for a kid to play 5 years...until the redshirt was added.

[Todd4State]

No, once you start your clock, it runs. If you play a year, then go on a mission, you only have 2 more years when you come back. But if you wait to start the clock, you still get the 5. So if a kid had already played, he would just lose a year.

I just looked at the BYU roster. I think you are mistaken. A couple of MSU related examples- JJ Johnson and Tim Bailey both served in the military prior to coming to MSU and they had normal eligibility even though both went JUCO first.

Both had three years to play two after JUCO.

[Todd4State]

I get that, but the only reason it's hard to see it going to 6 is because it's only 4 now. Once it's 5, going to 6 will be much easier to see. That's why I brought up the playoff.

Like the NCAA Tournament, going beyond 64 seemed insane when it was 32. But once it was 64, it's easy to see. And some have even called for 128. These things happen incrementally because it's the way the human mind works. Nobody would have ever thought there was a reason for a kid to play 5 years...until the redshirt was added. Only way that will happen is for them to increase the scholarship limits. The people wanting basketball tournaments to expand are TV people looking for revenue.

Even the guy you know in college that had been at MSU for 15 years longs to move on at some point.

[War Machine Dawg]

I just looked at the BYU roster. I think you are mistaken. A couple of MSU related examples- JJ Johnson and Tim Bailey both served in the military prior to coming to MSU and they had normal eligibility even though both went JUCO first.

Both had three years to play two after JUCO.

This is the key. Smootness clearly said once you start your eligibility clock, you can't hit the pause button on it. JJ & Tim never started their eligibility clock. They served in the military first. Therefore their clocks didn't start until they were in JUCO. If they'd gone to JUCO, then gone to the military, then played at MSU you'd be closer to what Smootness was pointing out.

[smootness]

I just looked at the BYU roster. I think you are mistaken. A couple of MSU related examples- JJ Johnson and Tim Bailey both served in the military prior to coming to MSU and they had normal eligibility even though both went JUCO first.

Both had three years to play two after JUCO.

Bailey's freshman year in JUCO was 2003. He was deployed in 2004 and 2005. Then he played for State in 2006 and 2007. So even though he only played 3 years, he was done after 2007 because that was 5 years after he started his playing career.

JJ Johnson was in the Navy right after HS, before going to JUCO. Once your 5-year clock starts, you can't delay it, no matter whether you play or are even on a team. But you can delay the start of your clock by not playing football.

[Quaoarsking]

I'm judging this proposal on its own merits (ie, if players are on the roster for 5 years, they should be able to play for 5 years), not hypothetical extensions we could see down the road.

I support a 5 year clock, no redshirts, no hardships, no extensions, period. If you are hurt for an entire year, tough. That would make it more like high school/NFL anyway. When you're hurt, have a personal emergency, etc., you just miss those games and never get them back.

What I support seems to be what is on the table. If they adopt this and 10 years from now talk about giving players a 6th year for hardships, I'll oppose that. But I'm not going to oppose this now because someone might propose something I don't like in the future.

[smootness]

I'm judging this proposal on its own merits (ie, if players are on the roster for 5 years, they should be able to play for 5 years), not hypothetical extensions we could see down the road.

I support a 5 year clock, no redshirts, no hardships, no extensions, period. If you are hurt for an entire year, tough. That would make it more like high school/NFL anyway. When you're hurt, have a personal emergency, etc., you just miss those games and never get them back.

What I support seems to be what is on the table. If they adopt this and 10 years from now talk about giving players a 6th year for hardships, I'll oppose that. But I'm not going to oppose this now because someone might propose something I don't like in the future.

But if they did add the 6th year down the road, despite your opposition, would you then support allowing them to play that 6th year?

[archdog]

Actually, the average time it takes a student to get a degree at MSU and most other colleges is 5 years.

The majority of football players are on the team for 5 years anyway. Why not simplify things and let them play all 5 years? It would cut out the decision process of guessing whether or not it's worth it to play true freshmen

With the 85 limit, this would hurt our team if they upped it to 106 to cover. Teams like Bama would just sign 21 more off the top. Combine that with Auburn and LSU and you just removed 63 potential recruits from our prospects.

If you look at this across the entire league, that's 280 more players other teams could pick up. I like when teams run out of room. I also believe 6 quarters or a RS freshman league with 2 additional staff members would be better. We could see our young players progress and it gives them something to do other than scout team. Only problem is no one has a full squad on rs

[Johnson85]

Most universities have a curriculum that, unless you attend summer school, can only be completed in five years.

Is this true? Unless you are counting graduate degrees, I think the only degree MSU has that can't be finished in 4 years without summer school is architecture (and I'm not sure that's not a master's degree when you get done). I know some schools have overcrowding issues where as a practical matter regular students will be shut out of a class because of size and therefore have to use an extra year (although this isn't an issue for scholarship athletes) but I think that's still the exception for schools, not the rule. What curriculum do most schools have that can only be completed in five years?

[Political Hack]

the average student takes more than 4 years to graduate. that has to be factored in.

the only reason I would be opposed, and I'm not because I haven't really though it through completely, is that it would result in fewer scholarships going out per year, resulting in less opportunities for kids each year. it's hard enough to get a scholarship to a big time school now. Kids have to pretty much be the best player that's ever come out of their high school to get an offer from an SEC program.