Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Options
Comments
I agree this approach seems much more valuable to the team and the player. Some flexibility is usually more valuable.
I guess my concern is that a RS would become a strategic "silver bullet". Almost like a relief pitcher. Get in a pinch, break out the RS. He's not really a RS, the coach is just waiting for the right time to bring him in. I prefer a "break in case of emergency" deal. Only one game, not starting. And if he goes in, the guy he replaced can't come back in. Coach would have to declare who he is taking out. I just don't like the idea of RS being used as a tactical tool.
I'm more inclined to think the rs tag would be used for development purposes. Especially in critical situations few coaches want to lean on an inexperienced freshman. I understand your point though.
I've read the argument here "The rich get richer with these rule changes"....but when was the last time when the rich didn't get richer......look at the top ten going back for the last 50 years....80% of the times they are same teams year after year....Alabama, Ohio, USC, LSU, OU, Penn State, even Georgia and Clemson...oh a few drop out ....like Nebraska...but for the most parts it's the same teams year after year.,
Back in the day, before roster restrictions (85), the Bear would just round 'em up so that opponents couldn't get them. He just hoarded players, I think scholarship limits have helped "redistribute" talent on a more equal basis. No coaches would support it, but what if the limit was reduced even further? Say to 80? or 78? That would mean a lot more good players for "other" schools to get that wouldn't be going to the same top 20-25 teams. Just a thought. Of course, extending that thinking logically (sort of) the NCAA could go back to one platoon football and keep just 35-40 players per team. Players had to go both ways in those days. Seems like we'll be stuck with a small # of teams that are consistently "elite" for a while.
Even if Eason was immediately eligible, I don't see him winning the starting job next year. Washington has some talented QB's already on the roster and its no given that he will be the starter ever just because he's from Washington. He should have transferred to Miami or Colorado St. Then he would have started.
I agree with the poster above that because of the longer season and the 85 player restrictions, there needs to be some give on kids having some playing time to develop in a few games when there isn't any real need for the starters to still be in. That could cut down on the injuries for starters and allow the freshmen to get a feel for the game before they are relied on for real playing time in the future.
As for rule number 2, I'd love to see where you read that. I haven't heard that anywhere other than some people wishing for it. But in any case, they should be able to transfer anytime they want. I just hope the schools they leave get some consolation like an extra scholarship allowed in the next or current signing class towards their 25 recruits limit. Helping schools keep 85 scholarship kids on the roster is very important.
And lastly, being a ref in games is much harder than most fans realize. If you haven't refereed a game, even on the intermural level, you have no idea how fast it moves out there and how you can't always be looking right at the place a foul may occur and even then see it. But with that, I think there should be some allowance for the coach's to have a challenge flag that they can toss on the field when they believe something happened that needs to be reviewed. Open up the fouls that can be reviewed for this (like offsides) and only allow one per game (or maybe half) for each team. And if the call stands, it costs the team a timeout. That would seem to accommodate something happening that was missed and also not really slow the game down any. I do believe there are way to many reviewed plays already. And maybe if this was incorporated, the instant replay could be restricted even further from what they can review to help speed up the games.
Forgive me if this has been said, but there were a TON of posts and I was too lazy to read them all...
2 thoughts:
I'm all for 4 games and still keeping their redshirt. It allows kids to get experience. By the end of the season they are more like sophomores anyway.... From experience, for players, the season is LOOOONG and this is a way to keep them motivated and see progress going in to sophomore year.
IF they institute the "free transfer" rule, the larger schools will poach the athletes that prove themselves from smaller schools. Mark my words. Thats what I would do. It would be within the rules and really hurt the smaller programs.
They would spend valuable resources to recruit these kids only to have them poached by larger schools causing the smaller schools to recruit more kids than they would have had to for the cycle.
So you would deny them the freedom of movement that people have in just about every job? The scholarship they sign is only for one year. If schools want them to stay for 4 years, or 5 years, make the schools give 4 and 5 year scholarships. If scholarships are only for 1 year, then let the kids find a better deal if they can. Schools certainly do by not renewing scholarships. FREE JAMES BROWN!!
I don’t think you deny them the ability, I’m just saying this is going to be the side effect.
They are trying everything they can to add parody, this would put further separation imo.
I'm sure you meant parity, but parody is really funny. Would make Norm Crosby smile.
You know what rule I don't like?
Being able to push a ball-carrier for more yards. Someone is going to get really injured in that scrum of players one day. I liked it the way it was....Momentum stopped....whistle blows the play down.
True. If Bear wanted a player and couldn't sign him for football, he would sign him for basketball, baseball, or track and say that he was a walk-on football player.
As if they weren't already reviewing like 1/4th of the plays Monday night? There was at least a total of 5 missed penalties. All momentum changing. I would rather watch a game for 3 hours and make sure it's fair called than to watch a 2 hour game with missed penalties that could have changed the outcome.
Publicly reprimanding officials is a bit too much, but if you're crew is under review and have been dismissed from the Conference you previously reffed for, you should not be a referee in a big game such as the NC game.
I've had enough of the reviews. Really bogs down the game. Do we really need to review an insignificant 5 yard pass on second down? I prefer to let the refs call the game. Give the coach one review per half. They can booth review all TDs, but not so long that it delays play. If a ref can't tell within 10 seconds, then the call on the field was close enough. I accept missed calls as part of the game.
Good idea. Let’s put Fields on a baseball scholarship and make room for another stud in this class.
So wrong call on the blocked punt and you don't want to review it?
Emotionally, of course I wanted it review. Sensibly, I understand that that there is probably a penalty somewhere on the field every play. Is that what we want, a toss sweep right for a 20yd gain called back because review saw a hold by the deep wide on the left side, 30-40yds from the play? I say no.
Now I'm sure someone will come back and say "well only on plays that affect the game or change momentum." Who is going to decide that?
Did bad calls cost us the game? Probably.
Am I pissed about about it? Definately...
Is it part of the game? Unfortunately...
Is it going to change?
Nope(ly)......
LOL....Because of Bear, that practice was outlawed. And because of that practice, we no longer have GT and Tulane in the SEC.
I don't believe you can do that. In FB ( and maybe BB) scholarships are counted against the 85 regardless of where the scholarship comes from. If they gave a FB player a water polo scholarship, it would still count against the 85. Of course, as always, I could be wrong.