5 years of eligibility as the standard?

[Renaissance]

Yahoo.com

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td class="yspsctnhdln">Taking the fifth</td> </tr> <tr> <td height="7"><spacer type="block" height="1" width="1"></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> By Terry Bowden, Yahoo! Sports
June 17, 2005 <table id="ysparticleheadshot" align="left" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" hspace="5" vspace="5"> <tbody><tr> <td class="ysptblbdr2"> <table class="yspwhitebg" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td> <table class="yspwhitebg" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td></td></tr><tr><td></td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> It's time for a change in NCAA rules.

Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior.

Four names for the four years it takes to get a college degree. There's only one problem – it no longer takes four years to get a college degree. It takes almost five. Yes, the average college student takes 4.8 years to graduate.

So what in the world do we do about all those students that are in their fifth year of college? First of all, we really do need to come up with a name for that fifth year. However, the main thing is that those students have the ability to use that fifth year to graduate.

And just as we should give a student five years to graduate, we likewise should give a student-athlete five years to participate in athletics.


Several conferences recently have proposed legislation that would give student-athletes five years of eligibility. Under current NCAA rules a student-athlete has only four years to participate during a five-year period.

In college football, this rule leads to quick evaluation of a freshman's readiness – physical and emotional – to play.

If he is determined to be definitely ready, he is moved on to the depth chart and given an opportunity to compete immediately for a starting or backup position.

If a player is deemed not ready, he is told he most likely will be redshirted and is moved to the practice/scout/look/hamburger squad for the length of the season.

However, if a freshman is in between, if the coaches aren't quite sure if he is ready to play or not, then they must resort to a third strategy. The player is given as much work in practice as possible to get him ready. Then, in the first three games (any more is considered a full year of eligibility), he gets as much playing time as possible.

If he shows that he can continue to help the team, he will remain on the depth chart and in the game plan. If he doesn't pan out then he incurs some type of "injury" and applies for a medical hardship – to get a fifth year of eligibility.

Why don't we all just come clean and do what's right for the student-athlete? It takes five years to graduate so give him five years to play football. Let him develop at his own speed.

If he needs the first half of his freshman year to acclimate himself to college life, let him do so and then play the last few games without wasting an entire year of eligibility. If he has family problems in the middle of his senior year let him deal with it without worrying that his college career will be over.

Don't tell me the current "five years to play four" policy is in the best academic interest of the athlete. Most coaches will tell you that when a student-athlete is held out for an entire season, he loses interest in being part of the team and subsequently loses interest in his school work as well. It is best to keep his head in the game by helping him feel that there always is a chance he will be able to contribute to the team.

Besides, look at the changes that have just been made to the schedule. We have added a 12th regular-season game, and we're extending the season into the second week of January. You talk about prioritizing academics. Gimme a dadgum break!

More games. Longer season. Let's find a way where the student-athlete can play ball and go to school. Let's do something that's not about us but about him. It takes five years to get a college education. Let's give him five years to play football.

Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Winner.

Terry Bowden is Yahoo! Sports' college football analyst. Send him a question or comment for potential use in a future column.

[Zurp]

I'm mixed about my opinion on whether to give them five years' eligibility. I almost think, "Yeah - give them the 5th year. Gives me better football." But can you imagine if someone came along and broke the all-time rushing record or touchdown record or interception record in his 5th year? It would be like Mickey Mantel and Roger Maris racing to beat Ruth's homerun record in the "extra" games that Ruth didn't have. For a while, people would say, "yeah, he broke the record, but..." There will always be the "but..."

[HineyBuck]

It's an interesting proposition, but I don't think he makes the case as to why "five years to play four" isn't working. Until that case is made, I would not favor throwing the current system over the side.

[methomps]

Originally Posted by Zurp

I'm mixed about my opinion on whether to give them five years' eligibility. I almost think, "Yeah - give them the 5th year. Gives me better football." But can you imagine if someone came along and broke the all-time rushing record or touchdown record or interception record in his 5th year? It would be like Mickey Mantel and Roger Maris racing to beat Ruth's homerun record in the "extra" games that Ruth didn't have. For a while, people would say, "yeah, he broke the record, but..." There will always be the "but..."

We already run into that kind of problem now that stats from bowl games are counted toward season and career stats.

[cincibuck]

Hmmmmm, one reason it takes an average jock five + years to get through is because playing ANY college level sport on scholarship is a full time job. The athlete's responsibilites are not limited to "in season."

Another reason it may take so long is because many of the athletes given scholarships start out taking a load of remedial courses to catch up. Funny how some of the most academically challenged kids are often gifted outside the classroom.

Finally, I believe that as long as a student is academically sound the school has to pay for his undergraduate degree. I'm not sure on that. NCAA rules may have changed in the last few years. If that is the case then in Bowden's mind the kid is getting a free ride and producing nothing in return for the school. In my mind it's only fair that an athlete be given that "free" year. They earned it.

[exhawg]

Originally Posted by HineyBuck

It's an interesting proposition, but I don't think he makes the case as to why "five years to play four" isn't working. Until that case is made, I would not favor throwing the current system over the side.

One problem with the 5 to play 4 is that some of the players that play their first four years don't make it back to finish their degrees if they couldn't do it in four. Schools will usually keep up the financial aid for the 5th year, but they don't have to. Add that to the players that don't care about school after football is over and you have a decent number of players not graduating.
Personally I had a better chance at playing time the year that I redshirted than the 2 years after that due to injury. Somehow we made it through my freshman year only playing 6 OL because the other 2 of us that were good enough to play were redshirting. I would be a big fan of getting rid of the redshirt and just playing 5 years.

[AJHawkfan]

Assuming they would not increase scholarship limits:

If a school has 85 football scholarships to give, spread among 4 year's worth of kids, that is an average of 21 schollies per year.

If they bump that window up to 5 years, it would bring that number down to 17 schollies per year.

There are what, 117 teams in D-1?

That means every year, there would be 468 kids who would not get the opportunity to go to college - many of whom cannot afford to go to college without the aid of an athletic scholarship.

[IronBuckI]

I like the idea of giving players 5 years to finish school, but if they can't make it to the next level of their sport after playing four years of college ball, then they should take that fifth year to concentrate solely on academics. Not continue to spend a large amount of their time on athletics.

[exhawg]

Originally Posted by AJHawkfan

Assuming they would not increase scholarship limits:

If a school has 85 football scholarships to give, spread among 4 year's worth of kids, that is an average of 21 schollies per year.

If they bump that window up to 5 years, it would bring that number down to 17 schollies per year.

There are what, 117 teams in D-1?

That means every year, there would be 468 kids who would not get the opportunity to go to college - many of whom cannot afford to go to college without the aid of an athletic scholarship.

468? You might want to think about that one. Most players are already on the 5 year plan thanks to the redshirt. How may players has tOSU had that played their freshman year and would have come back for a 5th year if granted? I bet it's a small number. Most schools have enough turnover that they can recruit 20-25 players a year and reward some walk-ons as well. I would guess the number would be more like 100 HS players that weren't able to get schollies if the rule changed.

[AJHawkfan]

Well, I was making a couple of assumptions. 1) the redshirt system would still be in place, thus creating a 6-year plan for a lot players. 2) the number of scholarships would remain at 85.

I agree with you in that if a kid is good enough to play at OSU as a true freshman, more often than not, he will not be around 3 or 4 years later. However, not every program is as elite as tOSU. How many kids leave MAC schools early for the NFL compared to the Big Ten? tOSU is not a typical football program, and probably should not be used to make generalizations about all other football schools.

Basically, what I was trying to say is that if athletes are granted another year or eligibility, (from 4 years to 5) the talent pool would be increasing by 20%, which would cost a lot of kids a chance to get a college education.

Sure, there are always D-II, D-III and NAIA programs where some of these can go, but often times, they cannot offer athletic scholarships, and can only offer assistance under the guise of "academic" rewards.

[Zurp]

Originally Posted by methomps

We already run into that kind of problem now that stats from bowl games are counted toward season and career stats.

Thats not such a bad thing. Someone (not me) can go back and find players' bowl stats and add them to their season and career stats. I don't know if that has been done, or is being done, or will be done. But I think that in many cases (if not all), it CAN be done. Players whose stats didn't originally include bowl games can be adjusted to include the bowl games.

Of course, the argument can be made that there are more bowl games now, and a better chance to play in a bowl game. That makes the chances better to increase a player's career totals. And let's not forget that a million years ago, sometimes six games was the entire season. Now, it isn't unusual to see a 12-game season (not counting a bowl game). Even Ohio State played a 13-game regular season in 2002. So that is, of course, going to affect players' statistics. And for that, I guess I can't be consistant with my argument against a 5th year of eligibility. I certainly don't want to go back to a 6 or 7-game regular season simply to match what was done a long time ago. But I think my opinion is leaning against allowing the 5th year.

[BB73]

I don't see any need to change this rule. Brandon Mitchell just got his degree in 3 years. Alex Smith from Utah got his degree at least that fast. Players already have 5 years with the redshirt. The cost of allowing more scholarships is something that the athletic departments aren't going to get from the university presidents.

Terry Bowden is just trying to create some controversy to make himself relevant, since he's a terrrible TV analyst.

And of course, if you're from that land-thieving place called Oklahoma and have a drinking problem that causes you to hit people; or win a Heisman trophy but aren't good enough to get drafted, you can even get a 6th year.

[AKAKBUCK]

Originally Posted by AJHawkfan

Well, I was making a couple of assumptions. 1) the redshirt system would still be in place, thus creating a 6-year plan for a lot players. 2) the number of scholarships would remain at 85.

I agree with you in that if a kid is good enough to play at OSU as a true freshman, more often than not, he will not be around 3 or 4 years later. However, not every program is as elite as tOSU. How many kids leave MAC schools early for the NFL compared to the Big Ten? tOSU is not a typical football program, and probably should not be used to make generalizations about all other football schools.

Basically, what I was trying to say is that if athletes are granted another year or eligibility, (from 4 years to 5) the talent pool would be increasing by 20%, which would cost a lot of kids a chance to get a college education.

Sure, there are always D-II, D-III and NAIA programs where some of these can go, but often times, they cannot offer athletic scholarships, and can only offer assistance under the guise of "academic" rewards.

Whatever the number of "More Scholarships" you would have to give is irrelevant... say 10 or something so you wouldn't experience "net loss" through the system....

Now.. the question becomes... and this is why I think this won't happen... What is the impact on the competitive landscape of the game...

Part of the reason there hae been reductions in Scholarships to 85, is that they wanted to eliminate the bigger programs from stockpiling talent... (In addition to easing the entry cost to I-A, and also to help meet Title IX requirements) but mostly to give other schools a chance to compete on a more reasonable playing field.

So... raising the Scholarship limits would have to be considered... but even if they decided to go with 85 AND increase eligibility to 5 years... who is going to be helped more by haveing 5th year eligible players? I don't know... (And you always have to account for a certain number leaving after 3) but in theory th more experience you have on a team... the better off you are... and the bigger schools are going to have guys who were better to start with... so... looking forward to 2006... what if Mangold, Sims, D'Andrea and all the other 4th year Seniors could come back (Assuming guys like Hawk and Carpenter would leave)... and if you kept the redshirt.. then it opens the door to a LOT more experience on your team... now that would be nice... but where does that leave the teams with lesser talent but the same experience... Sure small schools get you David Carr's and guys like that...but why would he have stayed for year 5 (or six)? Maybe Orton Stays at Purdue...

Anyway... I think it throws things way out of whack. I don't know, but it seems to me like doing this equals "more Scholarships" because you have more guys that are eligible to play... and then even more thatn that because you want to keep the fresh pipeline going to you add even more scholarships (Even if its not 20% more than 85)

And you think the smaller schools are crying about access to the BCS now?

[AJHawkfan]

Agreed. However, the number of more scholarships you had to give is not totally irrelevant. At a lot of schools, men's athletic programs are being cut entirely, so the school can comply with the rules that Title IX laid out. Adding 10 (or whatever) more football scholarships only assures that more men's sports like track, tennis, swimming, cross country, golf, etc. will be cut.

In my experience, 5 years is plenty of time to complete your degree, if that truly is a priority to the person. Unfortunately, the academic priority is often to do just enough to remain atheltically eligible, not to graduate. Adding 1, 2 or 3 more years to the eligibility won't change that priority set.

[AKAKBUCK]

However, the number of more scholarships you had to give is not totally irrelevant. At a lot of schools, men's athletic programs are being cut entirely, so the school can comply with the rules that Title IX laid out. Adding 10 (or whatever) more football scholarships only assures that more men's sports like track, tennis, swimming, cross country, golf, etc. will be cut.

I was trying to imply that as well... By irrelevant, I meant irrelevant as to whether its 5 more or 21 more in that its going to have impact based on the factors you just described thus increasing the cost of smaller (or less affluent or whatever) schools to compete in I-A... I see where it was unclear, sorry.