header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Major eligibility change proposal?

 (Read 4202 times)

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: Major eligibility change proposal?
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2018, 11:47:53 AM »
Unless they also eliminate the sitting out a year after transferring rule.
Then the Group of 5 becomes nothing more than glorified prep school.
this has always been my argument against removing the transfer sit rule. it'd greatly benefit bama and other top teams, imo, much more so than the smaller schools.

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: Major eligibility change proposal?
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2018, 12:04:30 PM »
this has always been my argument against removing the transfer sit rule. it'd greatly benefit bama and other top teams, imo, much more so than the smaller schools.
I hadn't thought about that, but you guys are right.  Doing away with the requirement to sit out for a year would greatly benefit schools like mine and RTF's because overlooked "diamonds in the rough" who proved their abilities in three (or four if this change is made) years at a G5 or even a lower-tier P5 school could transfer to contend for a NC their senior year at Bama/tOSU.  I think it would end up being a MAJOR addition to the typical recruiting.  Bama/tOSU would look for 5* HS recruits some good in-state kids and then fill positions of need from other teams' rosters.  

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12135
  • Liked:
Re: Major eligibility change proposal?
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2018, 12:39:33 PM »
In some ways, I also disagree with the idea of allowing them to play in bowls. If you're a redshirt, you're a redshirt.

One of the small advantages of bowls is that it allows more official practice time, and I'm sure some of those younger players get more run than they would while some of the outgoing seniors perhaps get a little less. 

But we have enough "the rich get richer" issues in college football, and then giving those players extra real-life in-game experience is just one additional way to keep bowl teams up and keep non-bowl teams down. 

If we want to have more parity, we shouldn't be making it worse. 

Hawkinole

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2218
  • Liked:
Re: Major eligibility change proposal?
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2018, 12:09:06 AM »
Chuck Long played in five bowl games. He is either the only (the only at Iowa), or one of the few in college football to have done so. And that's because in 1981-82 season Iowa was in the Rose Bowl, and he took a few snaps as a true freshman at the end of the Rose Bowl. He did not lose eligibility for the following season because I think the rule was different.


Okay -- here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Long

"Long redshirted for the Iowa Hawkeyes in 1981. However, the redshirting rule was new, so Long was able to take a couple of snaps during his redshirt season. The rule has since been changed; now, a player cannot participate in a single play during his redshirt season. While Long played very sparingly in 1981, he did run a couple of plays at the very end of the 1982 Rose Bowl; because of this, he later became the only College Football Player to ever play in five bowl games."
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 12:11:21 AM by Hawkinole »

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20280
  • Liked:
Re: Major eligibility change proposal?
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2018, 09:05:18 PM »
Postponing any further discussions until 2019.

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.