Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#163,478
#163,478
Ace said:
It applies to all fall sports. In football, 10 players times $75,000 = $750,000
Click to expand...
And most of that is just a line on an accounting book and transferred in house. Most are not lost monies.

Stipends are. Which is why I asked if COA stipends were for smaller schools. It appears they are not according to CBS. Only required by P5s.
 
#163,482
#163,482
Volnukem said:
So for 2021-2022 season, we can have 85 + any SR or RS SR that wants to come back? And now all of your underclassmen have one extra year of eligibility (6 years to play 5), but the 85 limit will be enforced after next season?

That's going to put the coaches in some tough spots on a lot of guys. It really hurts the high school guys the most. Do teams still sign the 25 max or hold on to a few more 6 year Seniors?
Click to expand...
Bingo. I think they will be forced to do something down the road. They should allow a smooth transition back by incremental allotments. As it stands, 2022 would be a cliff for most teams. Either take a class of 10 or nudge 15 seniors to kindly leave. It wouldn't be a good look.
 
#163,483
#163,483
Devo182 said:
And most of that is just a line on an accounting book and transferred in house. Most are not lost monies.

Stipends are. Which is why I asked if COA stipends were for smaller schools. It appears they are not according to CBS. Only required by P5s.
Click to expand...

It may not amount to the total amount, but it will increase costs at a time when most P5 schools are making major cuts.
 
#163,484
#163,484
Catbone said:
True but by then he will have his degree and I doubt he will want to continue bc no offense he ain't making an NFL roster
Click to expand...
Could go to grad school. He might be willing to try with a different team. I would not want to end as a backup if I thought I was capable of more.
 
#163,485
#163,485
Ace said:
NCAA did it to punish SEC, ACC and BIG 12. But it actually punishes smaller schools
Click to expand...
Lol huh? This HELPS those teams. Those coaches would not want that sort of disadvantage. OSU, Michigan, etc would have old ace teams compared to the rest. That wouldn't be fair. We were likely the ones pushing for it.

Of course Pruitt wants some of these senior DLs another year. That's not punishment.
 
#163,491
#163,491
How does the extra year of eligibility change the way the way teams play this year? Will we let HB play a lot more? Roster management and recruiting and transferring is going to be insane over the next few years. Now or maybe 2021 may be the perfect opportunity for the NCAA to implement a free first time immediate waiver transfer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeGoose, GojiraVol17 and Volnukem
#163,492
#163,492
Catbone said:
How does the extra year of eligibility change the way the way teams play this year? Will we let HB play a lot more? Roster management and recruiting and transferring is going to be insane over the next few years. Now or maybe 2021 may be the perfect opportunity for the NCAA to implement a free first time immediate waiver transfer.
Click to expand...
The all-sec schedule nullifies it imo.

Beforehand we could have 3-4 blowouts to let them play and still redshirt.

Now we are going against all legit teams. Maybe we still have a game or two to let them play, but nowhere like vs an FCS opponent and they are going in the 2nd quarter.

They are supposed to vote on it in January. I can't imagine it doesn't get passed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeGoose, SweetasSoda and Catbone
#163,494
#163,494
Devo182 said:
The all-sec schedule nullifies it imo.

Beforehand we could have 3-4 blowouts to let them play and still redshirt.

Now we are going against all legit teams. Maybe we still have a game or two to let them play, but nowhere like vs an FCS opponent and they are going in the 2nd quarter.

They are supposed to vote on it in January. I can't imagine it doesn't get passed.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
#163,495
#163,495
SweetasSoda said:
Did they say the 85 would be enforced after next year?
Click to expand...
Ace said:
No one knows about future 85 limit after 21-22
Click to expand...
"We have to look at what was right for the student-athlete for this situation," Lyons said. "The eligibility piece, without question in my mind, this is a win for them. As administrators, as coaches, we're going to have to deal with a potential backlog on the back end, but I'm very confident that we've done it in other situations in a yearly basis. It may be greater numbers, but we can work through that with the normal attrition you have on your rosters, as well as discussions with athletes in the coming years about their playing time and their interest in potentially transferring to other institutions.
Click to expand...

That last quote from WVU AD, who is on the board, certainly sounds like the 85 limit is coming back after 21-22.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182
#163,497
#163,497
Ace said:
I can understand allowing players who do not play this fall to retain eligibility and scholarship, but if you play this fall why should you get an extra year?
Click to expand...
I honestly think this is just a set up for the football season being cancelled if we see a rise in player infections. NCAA probably thinks a full season of football is unlikely. Otherwise, I agree. it doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
#163,499
#163,499
SweetasSoda said:
Guess that "normal attrition" means coaches are going to have to convince players they don't want to play football any more.
Click to expand...
that's basically what he said lol....but phrased it "...discussions with athletes in the coming years about their playing time and their interest in potentially transferring to other institutions "

that's awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top