“It’s something we’ve been working for for quite some time.”

It’s a little puzzling — the proposal that would allow players to appear in up to four games without losing their redshirt status has been tabled again.  This comes after the proposal was modified to eliminate something that evidently bothered some schools.

One aspect of the original proposal that raised some concerns, according to Berry, was a potential loophole that would’ve allowed midyear enrollees to play in the College Football Playoff or bowl games and not have it cost them a year of eligibility. Berry said the proposal has been amended to close that loophole, which could have presented a massive issue with the new early singing period in mid-December.

Now it think it would be cleaner simply to give players five years of eligibility instead of the current four, this proposal in its current form is favored by coaches (unanimously, according to American Football Coaches Association executive director Todd Berry) and apparently is looked upon favorably by players, per the article.

Several players in this year’s NFL Draft who redshirted during their college careers, felt having the opportunity to play in up to four games while redshirting either would’ve helped them or will benefit players in the future.

“I feel that definitely can benefit somebody,” said former Missouri wide receiver J’Mon Moore, who redshirted in 2013. “You can get a little bit of experience, a little bit of how fast the game is played and then I guess the coaches can judge on if you’re ready to play on that level or not. But I definitely feel like that benefits the player.”

Several tight ends, which is typically more of a developmental position, were particularly supportive of the proposal.

“I think that would be awesome,” former Oklahoma tight end Mark Andrews said. “I think guys just being able to get game reps. If you blow a team out and you want to put a guy in, why not? Why not let them get some game reps in front of 85.000 fans? It’s just going to make them better.”

And yet, it’s been pushed back again.  Makes you wonder what’s going on behind the scenes.

12 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

12 responses to ““It’s something we’ve been working for for quite some time.”

  1. Macallanlover

    While I do think the four game rule was excessive, I do think the penalty for losing a year of eligibility for participating in a dozen or so plays is too harsh. I also feel bowl games, outside of playoff games, should be open to any player on the team. That is a lot of practices and workouts to go through and be banned from the field of play.

    Like

  2. DawgByte

    Here’s something far more important the NCAA should be dealing with… “super stars” that refuse to play in Bowl or Playoff games, because they don’t want to jeopardize their draft status. That is totally unacceptable on a variety of levels.

    Like

    • LMAO. What exactly should schools do?

      Besides, I thought the kids were in school on a glorified internship to prepare for the pros.

      Like

      • DawgByte

        Weeeeellllll, Mr. Senator there are number of things could be done to address this problem. None will completely eliminate a player from not participating, however if what I suggest below could be enacted, it might slow the trend.

        The NCAA could support schools in drafting provisions to scholarship contract’s that would essentially force football players to participate and or play in ALL Bowl/Playoff games during the life of the contract, if that player is cleared by team medical personnel. If the player refused to play, their scholarship would be voided with all privileges immediately revoked with no access to either the team or facilities. Moreover, they could also be banned from any future on campus Pro Day events and denied access to any information sent to the coaching staff from NFL teams, scouts or agents regarding the player’s draft projections.

        PTW Dawg – This issue was discussed last December going into the Bowl season. Several former NFL players and analysts working for ESPN have sided with with those who chose not to play. It’s a very small percentage, however it’s typically star players who’s loss negatively impacts the team. As more and more analysts provide cover to these players I would expect this trend to rise in the future.

        Like

        • The NCAA could support schools in drafting provisions to scholarship contract’s that would essentially force football players to participate and or play in ALL Bowl/Playoff games during the life of the contract…

          The NLI isn’t a contract. There aren’t any schools pushing for this. NCAA support of your proposal would put another log on the antitrust fire, something even the NCAA itself isn’t stupid enough to do. That’s all before you even get to the liability issues this would create by incentivizing medical personnel to get players back on the field.

          Other than that, sheer genius.

          Like

        • CB

          That would be great for recruiting. Genius idea.

          “Come play for us, and if you don’t play in the Independence Bowl we’ll cut all ties.”

          Like

    • PTC DAWG

      Who has sat out a playoff game?

      I’ll hang up and listen.

      Like

  3. Maybe if you explain to the blue hairs that allowing a redshirt to play some without losing eligibility is really not that different from the Freshman games of yesteryear. That’s what Austin Peay is….or at least should be. Heaven forbid they give us at least one reason to attend all these cupcake games.

    In any case, the viewership draw is probably inconsequential to the average fan. It seems at places like Georgia, the only guys that get redshirted anymore are the ones in the trenches that require physical development that only time and age can require…..maybe a linebacker here and there as well.

    Like

  4. South FL Dawg

    Maybe they don’t need it because you can play in 1 or 2 games and then say you got injured. I’m probably overstating but isn’t this what happened with Kindley his freshman year?

    Like