Two Ways To Improve College Football
posted by Scott Hood on Monday, June 09, 2008
Well, here’s two things it needs to do as soon as possible: 1) Give players five years of eligibility; 2) Establish an early signing period.
The more I look into it, the more the five-year rule makes sense.
First, with some teams now playing as many as 14 games per season, it would reduce attrition caused by injuries throughout the long campaign.
Thank about it. Let’s say a school like South Carolina signs 25 recruits per year. Since most head coaches seek to redshirt a large percentage of the first-year players, that typically leaves about 60 to 70 of the 85 scholarship players available for active duty during the season.
In my opinion, that’s not enough.
The five-year rule would eliminate redshirting and make all 85 scholarship players available to play each season. Coaches wouldn’t have to be concerned with “burning” a year of a player’s eligibility for the sake of a few plays here and there.
That’s a good thing.
It would also eliminate some of the bureaucracy surrounding the NCAA’s mammoth organization. No longer would schools have to file for medical hardships or other types of appeals in order to obtain an additional year of eligibility when circumstances warrant.
It would avoid the “Jamon Meredith” scenario in which a player steps onto the field for a few plays, then has to file an emergency petition years later to get that year back.
Now, USC is faced with a situation where one of its top offensive linemen has to sit out the first two games of the season? Who’s the winner in that situation? No one.
Everything would be cut and dried – once the player steps on campus, the five-year clock would start.
The major advocate of the five-year rule is Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe, who’s currently a member of the NCAA’s Football Enhancement working group.
I hope Mr. Beebe uses the bully pulpit of his position to convince others of the sensibility of the five-tear rule.
One of the major arguments I’ve heard against giving players five years of eligibility is that it would lead to more scholarships being revoked by coaches before the end of the five-year term.
In other words, critics of the five-year rule fear it would lead to more instances of coaches running off players. Well, guess what? That happens already.
If anything, the number of cases of players being run off would increase only marginally, since no Division I head coach wants a reputation on the recruiting trail as someone who gets rid of players on a whim.
Hence, coaches would essentially police themselves.
While the early signing period appears to be a bit more controversial, it’s no less necessary.
The proposal that the SEC coaches recently approved by a 9-3 vote at the league’s summer meetings provided for a 24-hour period prior to Dec. 1 for players to sign a binding letter of intent.
However, the proposal had a fatal flaw as far as the SEC’s Presidents and Athletic Directors were concerned. It would have permitted players who had not taken official visits to sign early.
There was also some concern that the Dec. 1 date would have resulted in coaches focusing less attention on their current teams and more on recruiting during the September-December playing season.
That’s easily fixed. Make August 1 the early signing date and allow juniors to take official visits during the summer prior to their senior years.
In my opinion, an early signing period is needed in major college football. Players are verbally committing to schools earlier and earlier. Coaches waste valuable energy every year just trying to hold onto players that had verbally committed to their teams months before.
Unfortunately, since both the five-year rule and the early signing period make too much sense, the chances of either rule being passed are slim.
The NCAA rarely considers the best interests of student athletes when it passes new legislation and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon.
Hopefully, though, it will.
- Permalink, Discuss, Blog Home
Do you want to see the NCAA take steps to make college football a better sport? Good, so do I.
Well, here’s two things it needs to do as soon as possible: 1) Give players five years of eligibility; 2) Establish an early signing period.
The more I look into it, the more the five-year rule makes sense.
First, with some teams now playing as many as 14 games per season, it would reduce attrition caused by injuries throughout the long campaign.
Thank about it. Let’s say a school like South Carolina signs 25 recruits per year. Since most head coaches seek to redshirt a large percentage of the first-year players, that typically leaves about 60 to 70 of the 85 scholarship players available for active duty during the season.
In my opinion, that’s not enough.
The five-year rule would eliminate redshirting and make all 85 scholarship players available to play each season. Coaches wouldn’t have to be concerned with “burning” a year of a player’s eligibility for the sake of a few plays here and there.
That’s a good thing.
It would also eliminate some of the bureaucracy surrounding the NCAA’s mammoth organization. No longer would schools have to file for medical hardships or other types of appeals in order to obtain an additional year of eligibility when circumstances warrant.
It would avoid the “Jamon Meredith” scenario in which a player steps onto the field for a few plays, then has to file an emergency petition years later to get that year back.
Now, USC is faced with a situation where one of its top offensive linemen has to sit out the first two games of the season? Who’s the winner in that situation? No one.
Everything would be cut and dried – once the player steps on campus, the five-year clock would start.
The major advocate of the five-year rule is Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe, who’s currently a member of the NCAA’s Football Enhancement working group.
I hope Mr. Beebe uses the bully pulpit of his position to convince others of the sensibility of the five-tear rule.
One of the major arguments I’ve heard against giving players five years of eligibility is that it would lead to more scholarships being revoked by coaches before the end of the five-year term.
In other words, critics of the five-year rule fear it would lead to more instances of coaches running off players. Well, guess what? That happens already.
If anything, the number of cases of players being run off would increase only marginally, since no Division I head coach wants a reputation on the recruiting trail as someone who gets rid of players on a whim.
Hence, coaches would essentially police themselves.
While the early signing period appears to be a bit more controversial, it’s no less necessary.
The proposal that the SEC coaches recently approved by a 9-3 vote at the league’s summer meetings provided for a 24-hour period prior to Dec. 1 for players to sign a binding letter of intent.
However, the proposal had a fatal flaw as far as the SEC’s Presidents and Athletic Directors were concerned. It would have permitted players who had not taken official visits to sign early.
There was also some concern that the Dec. 1 date would have resulted in coaches focusing less attention on their current teams and more on recruiting during the September-December playing season.
That’s easily fixed. Make August 1 the early signing date and allow juniors to take official visits during the summer prior to their senior years.
In my opinion, an early signing period is needed in major college football. Players are verbally committing to schools earlier and earlier. Coaches waste valuable energy every year just trying to hold onto players that had verbally committed to their teams months before.
Unfortunately, since both the five-year rule and the early signing period make too much sense, the chances of either rule being passed are slim.
The NCAA rarely considers the best interests of student athletes when it passes new legislation and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon.
Hopefully, though, it will.
- Permalink, Discuss, Blog Home
Previous Blog Entries
Scott Hood. Since February of 2005, Scott has covered the South Carolina football, men's basketball and baseball programs for GamecockCentral. He may be reached by email at scottblog(at)gamecockcentral.com. Replace (at) with @.