Is this the end of red shirts?
- Thread starter SummitLion
- Start date
LudicrousSpeedGO!
Well-known member
I thought that they had 4 years of eligibility and then a redshirt didn't use up the eligibility. So if it's going to be 5 years of eligibility, why not 6 or 7 or 10?
Or maybe no rules? Like anything goes for NIL, like anything goes for recruiting other rosters, like anything goes for stealing signals or espionage with accessing other school's practice film? Isn't this where society is heading anyway? Anything goes. You can steal up to certain dollar amount per day, etc.?
Sheriff Coffee
Well-known member
I don't think this suit goes anywhere. The kids get five years of college for free, so unless he can show that there was some damage, it is a non-starter. Perhaps non-scholarship players have a beef. The NCAA can easily make eligibility 3, 4, 5 or 10 years. The Red Shirt was put in to allow players to mature or recover from an issue where they could not play a year (injury, personal problem, etc.). It has kind of been bastardized since then. They should get rid of it altogether.
LudicrousSpeedGO!
Well-known member
They can show damages and very quantitatively. NIL will yield a dollar amount that is determined for that 5th year, potentially the most lucrative year.
Sheriff Coffee
Well-known member
I don't think that is the point. They only get four years. The NCAA expanded that to five if circumstances dictate. So, in your argument, the kid can get NIL for five years instead of just four. But they can only play for four years. Without a RS, the NCAA can argue that they'd only get four years of NIL but can get 5 with the RS rule.
NittanyLion99
Well-known member
If I'm the NCAA, I just get rid of the Redshirt and say "Congrats, you have 4yrs of eligibility from when you start college. Well played and good luck."
Sheriff Coffee
Well-known member
Agreed. RS is a benefit and not a detractor. And, within RS guidelines, it is between the coaching staff and the player. Especially now with the xfer portal, if you don't like it, leave. Or get a commitment up front before making a commitment.
LudicrousSpeedGO!
Well-known member
You said unless they can show damages and I agree. And they can show millions of dollars in damage. Who is the NCAA to limit their NIL earnings potential? So perhaps the number of years of eligibility is thrown out? It is no longer a student-athlete amateur league. We are led by a QB taking one course and making $3million. It is clearly no longer amateurism. It is professional football where millions of dollars are made by players. How can the NCAA legally limit their earnings via eligibility or any other means?
Let me be clear, I don't want this. I didn't want unlimited NIL. I didn't want unlimited portaling. I didn't want Michigan cheating to be a wrist slap. I don't like where it's headed. Unless they get a collective bargaining agreement, there is no salary cap and no limiting what players can make and likely even how long that they can be paid to play.
Last edited:
Sheriff Coffee
Well-known member
OK. We may have to agree to disagree. The player has four years. End of sentence. The NCAA put in the RS rule out of the goodness of their hearts. The player does not have to play five years. In fact, can leave anytime they want. Your argument is really against limiting their eligibility to any years. That would be an interesting argument since college football has little to do with college. But Maurice Clarrett challenged that and lost way back when. Things have changed. But if the argument is that the RS opportunity hurts the player, I don't think that will fly.
LudicrousSpeedGO!
Well-known member
We can agree to disagree but that is not what Clarrett challenged. He left early and challenged going pro earlier than they permitted. I don't know if he then challenged coming back to college after declaring for the draft but he still had several years of college eligibility remaining when he left.
Forester Gump
New member
Isn't the current rule that they can play up to 4 games and still declare a red shirt yr?
Old Siward
New member
Plus all the post-season games as well, I think. If I'm not wrong (not betting on that) then a player can get up to 7 games in and not have them count towards his eligibility.
Believe they can play 8 if the team has 4 playoff games. Many of our RSs last year played in 7.
Old Siward
New member
Thanks for the correction, Dave. I struggle with such high-level math as counting to 8.
SummitLion
Member
Agree, but what they are claiming, is that even with those qualifiers, that they are losing a year of NIL. Someone mentioned it before, but if they win this, next they will complain about five year eligibility.
Thanks for the correction, Dave. I struggle with such high-level math as counting to 8.
It's not you. It's the chaos. Lol
RickinDayton
Well-known member
Tired of this foolishness. Lawyers will try to bring suit about anything. Another attempted $$$ grab. I hope the judge emphatically tells them to take a hike!
