Proposed new rules

JAYER4JAYER4 Posts: 13 ✭ Freshman

There are two interesting, new proposed rules that are to be voted on by the NCAA soon that are presumed to pass from what I've read (take that for what it's worth).

1.) Red-shirt players will be eligible to play in 4, yes FOUR, games and still red-shirt. This would be huge for those players who develop and catch on late in the season. Also, if it goes into effect immediately, Zamir may could play when it matters and still red-shirt.

2.) Players receive a one-time pass to transfer to another school without having to sit out a year. Again, if this passes and goes into effect immediately, guess who Auburn has a chance of facing week 1 in Mercedes Benz... Jacob Eason.

Just some thoughts, would be interesting to say the least.

«13

Comments

  • donmdonm Posts: 5,627 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @JAYER4 said:
    There are two interesting, new proposed rules that are to be voted on by the NCAA soon that are presumed to pass from what I've read (take that for what it's worth).

    1.) Red-shirt players will be eligible to play in 4, yes FOUR, games and still red-shirt. This would be huge for those players who develop and catch on late in the season. Also, if it goes into effect immediately, Zamir may could play when it matters and still red-shirt.

    2.) Players receive a one-time pass to transfer to another school without having to sit out a year. Again, if this passes and goes into effect immediately, guess who Auburn has a chance of facing week 1 in Mercedes Benz... Jacob Eason.

    Just some thoughts, would be interesting to say the least.

    Very interesting and, in some ways, game changing.

  • pgjacksonpgjackson Posts: 3,052 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited January 12

    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

  • oldon42oldon42 Posts: 978 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I think the #1 rule would be better if it limited the number of plays instead of the number of games. For example 50 plays in a regular season. This would allow players to get some playing time during mop up time without losing a years eligibility.

  • josh31533josh31533 Posts: 137 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @pgjackson said:
    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

    Good idea.

  • josh31533josh31533 Posts: 137 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @dradcliff said:
    If a kid can transfer anytime, when does the recruiting end. Schools would be going after other schools players all the time.
    Not to mention if a kid gets mad he may decide to transfer instead of working through the situation.

    Not a good idea.

    Not a fan of this one either.

  • josh31533josh31533 Posts: 137 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @oldon42 said:
    I think the #1 rule would be better if it limited the number of plays instead of the number of games. For example 50 plays in a regular season. This would allow players to get some playing time during mop up time without losing a years eligibility.

    I think this one could get dicey, I know a head coach would have someone on top of the prospective play count, but in the heat of the moment that someone could lose track of the play count and get some sort of violation and cost the kid or school down the road.

  • corai3corai3 Posts: 233 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @JAYER4 said:
    There are two interesting, new proposed rules that are to be voted on by the NCAA soon that are presumed to pass from what I've read (take that for what it's worth).

    1.) Red-shirt players will be eligible to play in 4, yes FOUR, games and still red-shirt. This would be huge for those players who develop and catch on late in the season. Also, if it goes into effect immediately, Zamir may could play when it matters and still red-shirt.

    2.) Players receive a one-time pass to transfer to another school without having to sit out a year. Again, if this passes and goes into effect immediately, guess who Auburn has a chance of facing week 1 in Mercedes Benz... Jacob Eason.

    Just some thoughts, would be interesting to say the least.

    Isn't Browning coming back for Washington? He's a pretty good QB. Also I like the Redshirt limited to a number of plays equal to around 1 games worth. Say like 100 snaps.

  • PlayHurtPlayHurt Posts: 251 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @DawgsofWar said:
    I would like for all penalties, including missed ones to be reviewed.

    This and for the officials to be PUBLICLY reprimanded just like players are when they make a penalty. There needs to be a new game-stat of missed/wrong/overturned calls by the officials. Then, the truly good officials can be rewarded with the bowl/playoff games.

  • RedDawgRedDawg Posts: 347 ✭✭✭ Junior

    What is interesting about these is they both go hand in hand. Players tend to want to transfer because they dont get any playing time (which in their minds means they dont get a chance to prove they can beat out others for the starting spot). Many players get offended when they get sat and red shirted and then look to transfer. Maybe the 4 games thing helps counteract the ease of transferring??

    But I am most concerned about Rule #2; Making it easier for kids to transfer would def add some dynamics that I'm certain most coaches don't want to deal with. Kids may commit without thinking more about it because they know they can just leave if they don't like it. Kids may not try to bond as much with their teammates because they are still unsure if they want to even be there. Recruiting becomes a nightmare, as if it wasnt already. And it makes the scholarship circus that much harder to manage. I wouldn't want to aid any disgruntled behavior, they need to learn to fight for the starting spot and try hard, as well as learn to get along and become teammates, not quit after a year and go somewhere else.

    If they really want to transfer then they sit out a year. its not the end of the world for them...THEY STILL GET COLLEGE PAID FOR for heavens sake.

    I think an alternative or additional condition to the not having to sit out a year, is if they go 2 full years at a school and are still not starting. So if they finish their sophomore year and still haven't started, then they can transfer and start immediately. But they should have to sit out if they try to transfer after their first year in college.

  • corai3corai3 Posts: 233 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @RedDawg said:
    What is interesting about these is they both go hand in hand. Players tend to want to transfer because they dont get any playing time (which in their minds means they dont get a chance to prove they can beat out others for the starting spot). Many players get offended when they get sat and red shirted and then look to transfer. Maybe the 4 games thing helps counteract the ease of transferring??

    But I am most concerned about Rule #2; Making it easier for kids to transfer would def add some dynamics that I'm certain most coaches don't want to deal with. Kids may commit without thinking more about it because they know they can just leave if they don't like it. Kids may not try to bond as much with their teammates because they are still unsure if they want to even be there. Recruiting becomes a nightmare, as if it wasnt already. And it makes the scholarship circus that much harder to manage. I wouldn't want to aid any disgruntled behavior, they need to learn to fight for the starting spot and try hard, as well as learn to get along and become teammates, not quit after a year and go somewhere else.

    If they really want to transfer then they sit out a year. its not the end of the world for them...THEY STILL GET COLLEGE PAID FOR for heavens sake.

    I think an alternative or additional condition to the not having to sit out a year, is if they go 2 full years at a school and are still not starting. So if they finish their sophomore year and still haven't started, then they can transfer and start immediately. But they should have to sit out if they try to transfer after their first year in college.

    I can't remember what site I saw it on, but there would be other other requirements such as being in good academic standing.

  • donmdonm Posts: 5,627 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @pgjackson said:
    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

    Why does the point of the red shirt have to change? All that is changing is the # of games that can be played. It used to be 20% of the games (2) and now it goes to 4. Don't see the problem with that. Seems to make things easier on coaches and more opportunities for players.

  • pgjacksonpgjackson Posts: 3,052 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited January 12

    @donm said:

    @pgjackson said:
    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

    Why does the point of the red shirt have to change? All that is changing is the # of games that can be played. It used to be 20% of the games (2) and now it goes to 4. Don't see the problem with that. Seems to make things easier on coaches and more opportunities for players.

    I'm pretty sure RS can't play at all. One play burns the RS status.

    https://www.backingthepack.com/college-football-news/2017/6/30/15905786/ncaa-redshirt-rule-changes-college-football

  • JRT812JRT812 Posts: 1,742 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @pgjackson said:

    @donm said:

    @pgjackson said:
    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

    Why does the point of the red shirt have to change? All that is changing is the # of games that can be played. It used to be 20% of the games (2) and now it goes to 4. Don't see the problem with that. Seems to make things easier on coaches and more opportunities for players.

    I'm pretty sure RS can't play at all. One play burns the RS status.

    https://www.backingthepack.com/college-football-news/2017/6/30/15905786/ncaa-redshirt-rule-changes-college-football

    Wasn't there a kid you played last year for UGA one play and still got his RS?

    In response to the OP, I could see number 1 being abused and number two seems good in theory, but needs more boundaries.

  • Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 3,367 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @corai3 said:

    @JAYER4 said:
    There are two interesting, new proposed rules that are to be voted on by the NCAA soon that are presumed to pass from what I've read (take that for what it's worth).

    1.) Red-shirt players will be eligible to play in 4, yes FOUR, games and still red-shirt. This would be huge for those players who develop and catch on late in the season. Also, if it goes into effect immediately, Zamir may could play when it matters and still red-shirt.

    2.) Players receive a one-time pass to transfer to another school without having to sit out a year. Again, if this passes and goes into effect immediately, guess who Auburn has a chance of facing week 1 in Mercedes Benz... Jacob Eason.

    Just some thoughts, would be interesting to say the least.

    Isn't Browning coming back for Washington? He's a pretty good QB. Also I like the Redshirt limited to a number of plays equal to around 1 games worth. Say like 100 snaps.

    You must be a Big 12 fan :D 30 is more reasonable in the SEC

  • SWARLES_BARKLEYSWARLES_BARKLEY Posts: 269 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    I get the issues #2 causes, but if coaches can leave in the night (or worse, the day after the kid signs his LOI) for another school, then we have to let players do the same.

    The drawbacks are inconveniences. Byproducts we have to get over that result from doing the right thing. Ethics are square one, and from there we can finagle with smaller steps to ensure recruiting between programs doesn’t become a thing.

  • SWARLES_BARKLEYSWARLES_BARKLEY Posts: 269 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    Plus, I think folks overestimate how eager players are to transfer. The vast majority of these guys build relationships and will not be looking to jump ship that soon.

  • DamnYankeeDawgDamnYankeeDawg Posts: 255 ✭✭✭ Junior
    edited January 12

    NCAA is trying to do their best with some competing interests. Fans love seeing more games. The season gets longer and longer. But the college football season wasn’t designed to go that long. Just like basketball and baseball when compared to the pro game.
    Something needs to be done with the schedule. Dawgs played 15 games this year. Almost an NFL schedule. More than a handful of teams played 14 games. And we have many people advocating for a longer season by going to an 8 or 16 team playoff. So add 2 more games for a handful of teams.

    If the NCAA doesn’t do anything about the schedule, the redshirt rule could help out with all the additional games many schools seem to be playing.
    I would prefer the number of games to be 3 for a RS to keep status. 2 games during the regular season at the team’s discretion and the other game being the bowl game.
    I believe most Power 5 teams would play these guys against the cupcakes during the season to get the RS players some game experience and give the regulars a chance to rest during the season.

  • Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 3,367 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @JRT812 said:

    @pgjackson said:

    @donm said:

    @pgjackson said:
    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

    Why does the point of the red shirt have to change? All that is changing is the # of games that can be played. It used to be 20% of the games (2) and now it goes to 4. Don't see the problem with that. Seems to make things easier on coaches and more opportunities for players.

    I'm pretty sure RS can't play at all. One play burns the RS status.

    https://www.backingthepack.com/college-football-news/2017/6/30/15905786/ncaa-redshirt-rule-changes-college-football

    Wasn't there a kid you played last year for UGA one play and still got his RS?

    In response to the OP, I could see number 1 being abused and number two seems good in theory, but needs more boundaries.

    It was Kindley and he got a waiver due to being injured.

  • Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 3,367 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @SWARLES_BARKLEY said:
    I get the issues #2 causes, but if coaches can leave in the night (or worse, the day after the kid signs his LOI) for another school, then we have to let players do the same.

    The drawbacks are inconveniences. Byproducts we have to get over that result from doing the right thing. Ethics are square one, and from there we can finagle with smaller steps to ensure recruiting between programs doesn’t become a thing.

    1 time transfer before they play maybe but would you want to be re-recruiting Fromm or Fields, Ledbetter or someone else that we had invested a lot of time or Chubb after he came back from injury that UGA "paid" for. Bama would be cherry picking the stars based on NC record EVERY year.

  • dbrown7494dbrown7494 Posts: 777 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    I like rule number 1 since kids think it’s okay to sit out Bowl games then why not allow a kid who worked hard all year to play in the bowl game and replace the guys who want to sit out and abandon his teammates. This also helps with injury bug that effects teams. Almost like how the pros bring a practice squad kid up for a week or two while someone is out. That redshirt year could be long for a kid who is just sitting. It would be a nice reward to maybe get to see the field for a couple games but I think 2 games instead of 4 would be perfect.

  • oldon42oldon42 Posts: 978 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @DamnYankeeDawg said:
    NCAA is trying to do their best with some competing interests. Fans love seeing more games. The season gets longer and longer. But the college football season wasn’t designed to go that long. Just like basketball and baseball when compared to the pro game.
    Something needs to be done with the schedule. Dawgs played 15 games this year. Almost an NFL schedule. More than a handful of teams played 14 games. And we have many people advocating for a longer season by going to an 8 or 16 team playoff. So add 2 more games for a handful of teams.

    If the NCAA doesn’t do anything about the schedule, the redshirt rule could help out with all the additional games many schools seem to be playing.
    I would prefer the number of games to be 3 for a RS to keep status. 2 games during the regular season at the team’s discretion and the other game being the bowl game.
    I believe most Power 5 teams would play these guys against the cupcakes during the season to get the RS players some game experience and give the regulars a chance to rest during the season.

    I agree with your position. another way would be to allow 95 on scholarship as and idea. This would give thousands more kids a chance to play college ball and get a education.

  • BoroDawgBoroDawg Posts: 497 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    2 would be the end of college football as we know it. Every freshman who doesn’t start immediately will leave the following year. There will be no more depth and players will essentially become guns for hire.

  • BamaDawgBamaDawg Posts: 1,674 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @PlayHurt said:

    @DawgsofWar said:
    I would like for all penalties, including missed ones to be reviewed.

    This and for the officials to be PUBLICLY reprimanded just like players are when they make a penalty. There needs to be a new game-stat of missed/wrong/overturned calls by the officials. Then, the truly good officials can be rewarded with the bowl/playoff games.

    1. To review every play for penalties missed would make a 3 hour game last about as long as a 3 hour tour on the USS Minnow (Gilligan reference).

    2. As for publicly reprimanding officials, I'm just going to assume that you have never called a football game in your life. As an official who has call High School football for over 10 years, I have no doubt that I have missed calls. If anyone out there thinks that they wouldn't either, you're a fool. Even with the experience I have (which includes Super 6 finals), I couldn't begin to imagine the speed at the college level.

    3. Lastly, at for the transfer rule, as long as the losing school still had the opportunity to limit the locations that the player could go to, I see no problem with it. Coaches leave all the time.

  • ThelordjohnsonThelordjohnson Posts: 1,421 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @dradcliff said:
    If a kid can transfer anytime, when does the recruiting end. Schools would be going after other schools players all the time.
    Not to mention if a kid gets mad he may decide to transfer instead of working through the situation.

    Not a good idea.

    Once a recruit signs a LOI. Coaches at opposong schools can only congratulate. Any thing else would be a recruiting sanction. It also allows talented players the right to play immediately. Like Eason or Manac.

    I like the RS idea. Its basically turning normal RS to medical redshirts. Also lets you use players in our FCS games to see how they are evolving. Lets tape develop on guys to nuture them better.

    The two go hand in hand. I could see Kirby playing a kid vs GT and then the kid transferring out after showing impressive skills.

  • dbrown7494dbrown7494 Posts: 777 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    I’m okay with rule number one as long as a kid is either limited by the school of where he can go. Or the kid is not allowed to compete against the school they left no matter if the game is regular season, playoff or championship game. I believe that actually makes it fair for the team who would lose a kid. This would allow a kid to leave freely and go where but not spurn the school he was originally at.

  • cliffhangercliffhanger Posts: 159 ✭✭✭ Junior

    1) 4 games is too much, 2 would be perfect

    2) This rule would be the worse thing to happen to college football. It pretty much makes you a free agent if you're not happy with not getting playing time or other factors with your team. Recruiting would never end for a kid.

  • mleemlee Posts: 660 ✭✭✭ Junior

    The first rule is fine and will only help everyone..
    The second rule should not be allowed unless something drastic happens at your school. Example Ole Miss. The school puts in a lot of time and money to have you on their team and when you sign a contract you should have to stand by that deal or pay a penalty to get out of it.

  • donmdonm Posts: 5,627 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @cliffhanger said:
    1) 4 games is too much, 2 would be perfect

    2) This rule would be the worse thing to happen to college football. It pretty much makes you a free agent if you're not happy with not getting playing time or other factors with your team. Recruiting would never end for a kid.

    Exactly. The free agent description comes close to nailing it. Since scholarships are given out on an annual basis (have to be renewed each year) why not let the student-athlete have the right to "change jobs" on an annual basis. Only seems fair to me. If a school wants a kid for 4 or 5 years, let them sign a contract for that amount of time. Seems to me that student-athletes might have fewer "rights" than a "regular" person in this area. I'm all for fairness. Really, would you want to give up your right to change jobs if you found something better for you and your family? There may be something wrong in my analysis, I know. But the university/student relationship seems one-sided in this case. With good grades, any student can transfer if he/she wishes, right? Seems like student-athletes don't have the same rights. Any thoughts?

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.