http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/01/11/afca-football-coac...
NASHVILLE — An early signing period and the addition of a 10th full-time assistant coach are among the noteworthy rule changes recommended by the American Football Coaches Association, which also proposed a new model for student-athlete eligibility at its annual meetings in advance of the upcoming NCAA convention.
In addition, support was unanimous for a drastic change to the current eligibility model that would adjust the parameters for how players can take redshirt years.
The recommendations will be forwarded for review to the NCAA's Football Oversight Committee, which will convene here next week.
We could see some drastic changes in the very near future to signing recurits, number of coaches in staff and redshirt availability.
As it currently stands, there is just one national signing day for prospective student-athletes across all NCAA levels of competition, occurring on the first Wednesday of February.
The AFCA endorsed allowing high school prospects to sign national letters of intent on both that signing day and on an earlier date, held on the third Wednesday of December, which is currently reserved for junior-college prospects.
There was unanimous support among NCAA head coaches about adding a 10th full-time assistant coach, with members citing overall student-athlete welfare and the ability to create a better player-to-coach ratio.
On the eligibility question, the AFCA proposed maintaining the five-for-four model — a player has five years to complete his four seasons of on-field eligibility — but with a twist: A student-athlete would be able to take a redshirt season in any year in which he participates in four or fewer games.
I think the early signing period is a great situation for both schools and recruits, no more none committable early offers. The extra coach will be good for kids but also bringing in new blood to the coaching circles at the higher levels , the redshirt makes a lot of sense, a kid loses it with a single play doesn't benefit anyone. Now to see what the NCAA committee says about these.
Comments
If this happens, they better close ALL the loopholes.
Explain please.
Well, if they say that you can redshirt a player during any year in which he plays four games or less, does that mean the first four games or any four games?
As an example, I could see a scenario in which a team has an all-world 5-star recruit and they use him during games 2, 5, 9, and 12 of the season as a true freshman, but then receive approval to redshirt him so that he comes back the following year with 4 seasons of eligibility.
This doesn't solve the problem, but any player deemed worthy of that treatment probably ain't staying all five.
On its face, I kind of don't mind if a player gets to play what basically amounts to 4 extra games total over the course of 5 years. Could work out great for teams, or could handcuff a team scholly-wise.
It'd be great for getting future freshmen stud players an entire half or 3/4 of a game of playing time while mopping up against uva.
I don't see teams using it that way as much as I would think, oh this kid has developed athletically, physically and mentally over the season, let's play him starting in game 11 and it still counts as a redshirt. Either way, I think it benefits both sides but I think people might bend the rule that way rather that mixing players in sporadically.
Or in situations like the UVA game a couple years ago where the coaches considered pulling A. Ford's redshirt due to Motley and Brewer both being hurt.
So, I may be missing the point, but I like that model. It helps if you have injuries or you have a freshman who really progresses throughout the season. Let them see some time on the field but it's not a full year. Also allows for a Michael Brewer situation where someone gets hurt game one, and comes back late in the season, they still maintain their eligibility.
I don't know if 4 is the right number, but it is an even number so I like it.
I'm not a huge fan of this model. It's too easy to abuse. I like the idea that a guy who's called in to action due to unforeseen circumstances ahead of him on the depth chart (injury, concussion checks, ejection for targeting, having to sit out a play because his helmet came off, etc.) doesn't lose his redshirt for emergency duty. However, letting a guy play 4 games in mop-up duty or because he's developing faster than expected seems to circumvent the purpose of the redshirt rule. I think if you want to claim a redshirt for a year in which you played in a few games for anything other than emergency duty, you should have to sit out the same number of games to start the following year. That would probably help to curb abuse of this provision if it comes to pass.
So you're saying Lawson could have retained his redshirt even after making two passes?
If we had been able to redshirt him there'd be a better chance of him staying.
Wait, you mean Lawson left?
Just that I've heard rumors of his impending departure. #sauces
I wish they'd also recommend that PAC12, ACC, and BIG12 refs all get sent back to pee wee league to get their shit straight.
I don't think national championship ref is going to willingly go back to pee wee, that guy would have killed dadi last year
What position could you see the 10th coach taking over? What names out there could get the job?
For VT, I would say LBs. Then Bud can roam all over the practice field.
I think Bud loves teaching linebackers one-on-one too much for that to happen.
I would hire a guy as just a recruiter. No actual on-field responsibilities.
You can already do that.
Yes, but if I can adequately coach my team with 9 I'll take a guy who would just stay on the road recruiting during every possible window for #10.
The NCAA would probably not be ok with a coach that doesn't have any coaching duties or contact with players.
I would take the "Special Teams Coordinator" title from Shibest and have a separate STC who's responsibilities would include special teams, scout team, walk-on development and be our main recruiting assistant coach...I think it would be a perfect position for a young, energetic coach that's just breaking into coaching and would help us find more Sam Rogers, "diamond in the rough" type prospects
The redshirt deal is interesting. November in college football would be like baseball in September after roster expansion.
I can see the NCAA trading it for medical redshirts.
To combat just that scenario, I could see them instituting the medical waiver rules for which games a player can play in and still redshirt. That would give players a trial run to see if they're ready for this level, and the coaches can pull the plug early if it's obvious a true freshman just isn't finding his groove yet.
the medical redshirt is probably the most abused aspect of eligibility rules right now. eliminating it and instituting a set game limit for redshirting would save lots of paperwork and staff time.
and if sitting out the bowl game becomes more widespread for good players, it would add fan interest to the bowl games to see some of the young guys...kind of a preview for next year.
Geez, Alabama loses a NCG and suddenly we want to change staffs and redshirt policy.
so, when they say a total of less than 4 games, is that 4 games participated in or 4 games by minutes? Could a freshman play in 20 minutes in each of 12 games and only count for 4 games?
It's unclear, but I would think it's almost assuredly a proposal to be allowed redshirt after appearances in 4 games or less.
Plus, I'm not sure "minutes" works well for determining playing time in football, where time of possession can be so wildly different depending on an opposing team's offense, or talent gap that allows one team to dominate, etc. Too many factors for minutes to be a baseline criteria.
A better metric might be percentage of snaps played, but that doesn't seem to be part of the discussion in the proposed changes which leads me to believe it's appearances in 4 games or less.
Not to mention that guys that play solely offense or defense (as in, practically everyone) are on the field for only half of the minutes already (on average). And passing plays tend to take less time than running plays, so that would factor in.
Exactly. Minutes played is pretty much a non-starter for determining "4 games played."
Percentage of snaps is also a bad indicator, since you might have a guy who only plays special teams fall under a minimum snap percentage. Should a guy who played in every game, but only on special teams, be allowed to redshirt? I don't think so.
Pretty much points to appearances in 4 games.
Those all sound good to me. The early signing day would be nice, without
having it drag out to February.
If a regular student can get in on early decision, why not an athlete?
Just what Bama needs, another former head coach in the mix. I still am not fond of the early signing/binding agreements as coaches get to up and leave at a whim but students get penalized and have to sit out a year/loose a year of eligibility if they want to transfer due to coaching changes.
What's worse an offer you can't commit to or a coach leaving?
Yeah but if a kid commits to play for a coach and signs but then the coach leaves and there is no penalty for him but there is for the kids if he wanted to follow the coach.
There could be a penalty (i.e., a buyout) for the coach if he leaves early, but that's all negotiated at the contract drafting stage.
I don't see this as a huge issue. You're signing that LOI to play for a team, not for a coach. If you, as a player, are more committed to the coach than to the program, the answer is simple: don't take advantage of the early signing day. By the time the traditional signing day rolls around in February, the coaching carousel has stopped turning and you can make a more confident commitment at that time.
Another potential solution to this problem could be to make the early LOI's non-binding in the event that a head coach, or your position coach, leaves the program. That might be a bit trickier for kids who want to play QB but are expected to play TE (not that such a situation would ever arise), but it's not insurmountable. Maybe allow the player to pick one coach whose departure would allow him to rescind his commitment.