Btrain2877 said:

---

At this rate, the goal of getting to the NFL isn't going to be a goal anymore(besides being a for sure 1st rounder).

---

Tell that that Ty Simpson, Taurean York or the 100 other early entrants that aren't going first round!

I don't even think Taurean is getting drafted he should have stayed for his senior season.

AWP 97 said:

---

So basically every player can redshirt by sitting out a few games since playoff games don't count. Teams may decide to not play their better fish in the OOC games. Who cares at this point? Just privatize college football and have ten year college students.

---

I would imagine that building experience for a freshman helps development, so it would make more sense "redshirt" your seniors by sitting in OOC games.

AozorAg said:

---

rootube said:

---

Never understood why people get so bent out of shape over an extra year of eligibility. Who the heck cares.

---

I don't care if we just go to five years of eligibility. Whatever.

What I do care about is where it stops. If there's a justification for giving players five years to play, why shouldn't it be seven years? There are people who go to college for seven years. If you want to get a masters and a PhD, why can't you play for 10 years?

I just want hard and fast rules to come back so everybody knows what target to shoot at.

---

NFL is behind this they want them in college as long as possible to vet the guys out. Another year helps them alot gives them 1 more year to make a bet on a player and improve odds while the boosters pay the salary.

Don't care about this one at all.

They need to fix or get rid of targeting all together. That one is the important one.

The whole charade falls apart as soon as a few hundred individuals across the major FBS programs toss their pride to the side and decide they aren't funding this crap anymore. In short, we are stuck forever... because that won't happen.

The Collective said:

---

The whole charade falls apart as soon as a few hundred individuals across the major FBS programs toss their pride to the side and decide they aren't funding this crap anymore. In short, we are stuck forever... because that won't happen.

---

Even if all those big donors stop giving money for NIL the big football teams are still going to have over $15 million to spend on players. (And that is in 2025, the number likely goes up in 5 years)

So this idea the whole thing will fall apart just doesn't hold water.

If donors aren't giving, those programs are going to have to cut other athletics programs, admin, the overhead of all the fancy facilities, etc. Right now, college football should be self-funding, but there are so many special interests, non revenue sports, admins, and bull**** waste sucking money... it is requiring other private funds to come in to close the gap to a fair wage vs. the revenue #. It is pretty insane when you think about it all.

I'm in the get rid of the Redshirt and give everyone 5 years of eligibility crowd.

The non-medical Redshirt is a dated concept and should be used only for undersized players. The players who have the physical ability to play at age 18 should not be redshirted. They should be on the field. This is especially true given the current portal rules. Why waste a good player on the bench when in 2 years that player will be on a different team? Use that player's ability while you have him.

The Banned said:

---

The Collective said:

---

With that said, no amateur or semi-pro league is as successful as the NCAA version of American sports. Why watch a subpar version of football when the NFL is available? Affinity interest in your school... that's all this is. It's not even about the players or superstars of the game.

---

This was what my last post was questioning. Does it really drive the same amount of school pride in 2030, for example, if we're starting a 27 year old playing for his 4th school in 8 years?

---

I think it does

It's your school

You want them to win.

That doesn't change just because of who the players are playing the games

BTKAG97 said:

---

I'm in the get rid of the Redshirt and give everyone 5 years of eligibility crowd.

The non-medical Redshirt is a dated concept and should be used only for undersized players. The players who have the physical ability to play at age 18 should not be redshirted. They should be on the field. This is especially true given the current portal rules. Why waste a good player on the bench when in 2 years that player will be on a different team? Use that player's ability while you have him.

---

I agree with getting rid of redshirts all together and just having 5 years of eligibility

Blonde Coffee Beans said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

man i may have a few years of eligibility left. anyone in need of a couch potato? start the bidding.

---

$3.50 is my best offer

---

$5 but you have to appear in the commercial for my side business, the BCS Emu Petting Zoo.

Why's this bad? One more year of eligibility. One more year of development. Better football.

9 is too many.

I think total eligibility should be 5 years if a player stays at one school and 6 years if he plays at 2+ schools.

A nothing burger. Changes nothing of consequence IMO

greg.w.h said:

---

Olympics have been predicted to lose viewership due to similar issues related to addressing amateurism issues. Viewership continues to grow.

---

That story is a Crock of *****..Its because no one wants to watch they/thems dominate every women's event and women's events are half of the televised events.