• The KillerFrogs

NCAA football meetings

Limp Lizard

Limp Lizard

Full Member
One of the NCAA committees will address the redshirt issue. One of the options is 5 years to play 5 seasons: no redshirt.

Coach Dykes has mentioned this a few times. The 4 games to play to retain a redshirt is something that coaches try to plan out, with fingers crossed. Sonny is very in favor of the 5 to play 5 proposed rule. Makes sense to me, too.

My question is: when does the NCAA committee meet this summer? Couldn't navigate through ncaa.org to find the date.
 
W

Wexahu

Full Member
Limp Lizard said:
One of the NCAA committees will address the redshirt issue. One of the options is 5 years to play 5 seasons: no redshirt.

Coach Dykes has mentioned this a few times. The 4 games to play to retain a redshirt is something that coaches try to plan out, with fingers crossed. Sonny is very in favor of the 5 to play 5 proposed rule. Makes sense to me, too.

My question is: when does the NCAA committee meet this summer? Couldn't navigate through ncaa.org to find the date.
Click to expand...
Heck, why not 6 to play 6 or 7 to play 7? What difference would it make?

Someone explain to me how that wouldn't be more "beneficial to the student-athlete"? Isn't that what every single decision being made has been about? I just don't understand why 4 years has always been some magic number, if a poor kid can make money off boosters for 10-15 years playing the sport he loves why should we deny them that opportunity? It should be about the players and only the players, not the game.
 
TxFrog1999

TxFrog1999

The Man Behind The Curtain
Wexahu said:
Heck, why not 6 to play 6 or 7 to play 7? What difference would it make?

Someone explain to me how that wouldn't be more "beneficial to the student-athlete"? Isn't that what every single decision being made has been about? I just don't understand why 4 years has always been some magic number, if a poor kid can make money off boosters for 10-15 years playing the sport he loves why should we deny them that opportunity? It should be about the players and only the players, not the game.
Click to expand...
Unless you're Van Wilder, it typically takes 4 years to earn a college degree.
 
W

Wexahu

Full Member
TxFrog1999 said:
Unless you're Van Wilder, it typically takes 4 years to earn a college degree.
Click to expand...
But they've let kids play 6 and even 7 years in recent years. Why?

Kids normally don't attend 3-4 schools to earn their degree either (and especially ones that get scholarships), but the powers that be seem to have no issue with that.
 
An-Cap Frog

An-Cap Frog

Member
Wexahu said:
But they've let kids play 6 and even 7 years in recent years. Why?

Kids normally don't attend 3-4 schools to earn their degree either (and especially ones that get scholarships), but the powers that be seem to have no issue with that.
Click to expand...
Animal House GIF
 
ShadowFrog

ShadowFrog

Moderators
FrogAbroad said:
How about "full time students are eligible to play." Three-year students? Fine. Four year? Great. Five- and six-year students? "Full time students are eligible to play." Most will be gone before they're 30. Cool. Let 'em play.
Click to expand...
Someone please find/post that ad of old crusty Brian Bosworth telling the time-traveller “take me back.”
 
Brog

Brog

Full Member
Wexahu said:
Heck, why not 6 to play 6 or 7 to play 7? What difference would it make?

Someone explain to me how that wouldn't be more "beneficial to the student-athlete"? Isn't that what every single decision being made has been about? I just don't understand why 4 years has always been some magic number, if a poor kid can make money off boosters for 10-15 years playing the sport he loves why should we deny them that opportunity? It should be about the players and only the players, not the game.
Click to expand...
Doncha remember that four years used to be the usual span for getting through college? Back when education was the important thing, and football something to do to while away the time.
 

Latest posts

Top