The NCAA is considering adding a 5th year of eligibility in all sports while keeping their redshirt, eliminating the national letter of intent & more

Donate To GopherHole

I wrote this before and watching week 1, I feel it even more strongly - they should completely eliminate the idea of eligibility. If you are enrolled, you should be eligible. College athletics is 100% a business now so let's even the odds and allow unlimited eligibility. Bring back Leidner or Morgan until we buy a better QB from the portal.
 

csom_1991 said:
I wrote this before and watching week 1, I feel it even more strongly - they should completely eliminate the idea of eligibility. If you are enrolled, you should be eligible. College athletics is 100% a business now so let's even the odds and allow unlimited eligibility. Bring back Leidner or Morgan until we buy a better QB from the portal.
Click to expand...
They should just make it a minor league system. Each pro team gets three affiliates like baseball. Have a triple A league, double A and single A. Draft the high schoolers instead of recruiting them.
 


btowngopher said:
They should just make it a minor league system. Each pro team gets three affiliates like baseball. Have a triple A league, double A and single A. Draft the high schoolers instead of recruiting them.
Click to expand...
I think as TV revenue models break (for college and pros - NBA already happened), college football will realize that they are actually a direct competitor for NFL and they need to change their relationship to that new reality to gain a bigger share of the remaining revenue. If you go back to the early days of pro-football, it was seen in the same light as WWE, not as a huge skill and pay opportunity vs. college. I say this as the current paradigm was not always the case. If revenue gets more diluted with college getting a bigger share, the NFL model completely breaks. All that said, I think college will at least always have the local university tie-ins to keep their fan bases. NFL appeal is wholly based on some strange geographic affiliation only.
 


How does the mission of the U of MN, or any other higher education institution, fit with major college sports today?
 

corcorangopher said:
How does the mission of the U of MN, or any other higher education institution, fit with major college sports today?
Click to expand...
It fits in the same way that new dorms and other student amenities do - it is their marketing arm as universities have transitioned to being big business and local economic drivers vs. a mission of educating. If the U of Minnesota tightened academic standards resulting in a 75% drop in enrollment but a top 10 national ranking - do you think it would be supported? I don't because the drop in economic activity would be devastating and directly impact the governing class.
 

This is the issue:

1. Huge amounts of money are involved. That is not going to change.
2. The courts said that free labor via college students is illegal. Players must get a piece of the pie.

If the money wasn't so big we could be like the old days. With so much money involved, the players now have to get some of that huge pile of cash.


Now to the point of the post, NFL-caliber players will leave for the NFL. Remaining players are a farm team to prep more borderline prospects for the NFL. Colleges get a more-veteran product, better for consumers.

It's not what it used to be, no. The huge money is never going away.
 

csom_1991 said:
I wrote this before and watching week 1, I feel it even more strongly - they should completely eliminate the idea of eligibility. If you are enrolled, you should be eligible. College athletics is 100% a business now so let's even the odds and allow unlimited eligibility. Bring back Leidner or Morgan until we buy a better QB from the portal.
Click to expand...
why do you need to enroll? I'd rather they just pay them directly under contract instead of making it so fans at footing the bill via NIL.
 



the headline is a little misleading.

the proposal would take the current redshirt rule used in football and wrestling, and extend it to other sports. so, just like a football player can appear in 4 games + a bowl game, and not lose a year of eligibility, a basketball player or hockey player could appear in a certain number of games (that # to be determined) without losing a year of eligibility.

so if the Gopher basketball team brings in a high school recruit, that recruit could appear in - potentially 8, 9 or 10 games and still have 4 years of eligibility remaining. this would not impact high-end recruits, because they almost never stay in college for 5 years. but for a HS recruit who needs development, they could gain some valuable game experience.

the other part of this is the idea that the National Letter of Intent would be eliminated. its functions would be taken over by the signing of scholarship agreements. not sure how that would impact National Signing day.
 

Another step down the path to my eventual prediction that the NCAA attempts to usurp the NFL by eliminating eligibility limits entirely. Because once you have a nationwide league that pays the players and has tons of fan affinity, why force your top talent and TV draws out after four years?

There is at least a 10-20% chance that in 10-15 years there are 30 year old highly paid pros all over the Gophers roster. In a bizarro way it's maybe the only realistic path to an 8th natty.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
the headline is a little misleading.

the proposal would take the current redshirt rule used in football and wrestling, and extend it to other sports. so, just like a football player can appear in 4 games + a bowl game, and not lose a year of eligibility, a basketball player or hockey player could appear in a certain number of games (that # to be determined) without losing a year of eligibility.

so if the Gopher basketball team brings in a high school recruit, that recruit could appear in - potentially 8, 9 or 10 games and still have 4 years of eligibility remaining. this would not impact high-end recruits, because they almost never stay in college for 5 years. but for a HS recruit who needs development, they could gain some valuable game experience.

the other part of this is the idea that the National Letter of Intent would be eliminated. its functions would be taken over by the signing of scholarship agreements. not sure how that would impact National Signing day.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the summary.

In today's rapidly changing environment, I think the NLI has lost some meaning? Isn't it the case that you can't sign it until Feb? If a player truly, legally wants to commit to a school before then, I think they should have an option to do that. And perhaps this is for that. I also don't think the NLI was legally binding in any way, but I could be wrong about that. Perhaps this new agreement would have more legal teeth.


I would think the majority of non-superstar college athletes would prefer to be in school and on the team for five years instead of four, if it means they can earn more money and get more time to develop? Some will prefer to play right away.
 

GopherGrit said:
Thanks for the summary.

In today's rapidly changing environment, I think the NLI has lost some meaning? Isn't it the case that you can't sign it until Feb? If a player truly, legally wants to commit to a school before then, I think they should have an option to do that. And perhaps this is for that. I also don't think the NLI was legally binding in any way, but I could be wrong about that. Perhaps this new agreement would have more legal teeth.


I would think the majority of non-superstar college athletes would prefer to be in school and on the team for five years instead of four, if it means they can earn more money and get more time to develop? Some will prefer to play right away.
Click to expand...

the signing of the NLI is - in theory - an announcement that the recruiting process is over and the athlete has made a final decision. I believe that it is considered to be at least a type of contract. unless you are Dennis Evans - and in his case, he had to formally request that he be released from the NLI, which doesn't happen often.

but yeah, I would be fine with a system where a player can sign a scholarship agreement at any point in the process and that would end all recruiting - instead of having to wait for some arbitrary day on the calendar. I haven't seen enough details on this proposal to know how it would actually work.
 



GopherGrit said:
I also don't think the NLI was legally binding in any way, but I could be wrong about that.
Click to expand...
I thought it was legally binding... But if player asked to be released, that could happen. That's what the basketball team did with Dennis Evans IIRC. Depends on how bad you wanted to keep a guy that you knew was going to be unhappy maybe? That also might be one of the things the courts shot down in the last couple years too, I don't pay as close of attention as I probably should. I'm sure someone here will let me know if I'm wrong (right GHers?)
 
Last edited:


short ornery norwegian said:
the signing of the NLI is - in theory - an announcement that the recruiting process is over and the athlete has made a final decision. I believe that it is considered to be at least a type of contract. unless you are Dennis Evans - and in his case, he had to formally request that he be released from the NLI, which doesn't happen often.
Click to expand...
Beat me to it SON
 

These already arbitrary rules are just getting more schizophrenic. Without a negotiating unit, player union, association in place how does, for example, reducing players’ ability transfer for compensation and playing opportunity to a few weeks per year square with antitrust laws. If a state attorney general goes to bat for affected players( like they did in TN, Virginia etc last year) does the NCAA go back to court and try to explain their logic, given that they’ve rolled over on the amateur model. I don’t think any one of us would agree to a yearly binding contract without recourse, nationwide non-compete, etc.
 

Going back to the proposed House settlement do the players (or anyone) know how the revenue sharing will work? Who gets what. For a football player it’s the difference between getting 30K/yr versus $200k. That’s assuming school allocate it equally. Do schools have ability to prioritize their impact players, lure other school’s players. Then it gets really interesting (and combative).
 

csom_1991 said:
I wrote this before and watching week 1, I feel it even more strongly - they should completely eliminate the idea of eligibility. If you are enrolled, you should be eligible. College athletics is 100% a business now so let's even the odds and allow unlimited eligibility. Bring back Leidner or Morgan until we buy a better QB from the portal.
Click to expand...
This is what I've been saying. I'd suit up a team of 30-year-old pros...Vikings reserves...win big. Now, before anyone else does.

But obviously our administration despises FB and men's BB and wants to lose. This is a fact. They pay Coyle big money to lose...and be a professional liar while doing it.

Although now that FB and men's BB are completely ruined...completely disgusting...I can't blame our administration for not paying big. But the lying is still annoying.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom