Results 1 to 8 of 8

Amazing new NCAA rule

This is a discussion on Amazing new NCAA rule within the Georgia Tech Football forums, part of the Georgia Tech Sports Message Boards category; Not FR can play 4 FULLgames and not lose a yr eligibility. WOW WOW.before it basically NO play (unless medical/injury ...

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date

    Aug 2011
    Posts

    2,598
    Blog Entries
    1

    Amazing new NCAA rule

    Not FR can play 4 FULLgames and not lose a yr eligibility. WOW WOW.before it basically NO play (unless medical/injury in one/2).This could be HUGE.

    I wonder who will profit the most.? We lose a lot of guys before 4 yrs but we need experience in our OFFense more than most so it might help there.Could have 5th yr guys but so will others. .WE also have mostly 2-3 star players who need a lot of development.

    The factories might lose a few more with the added exposure.
    What other thoughts are out there?


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date

    Aug 2011
    Posts

    899
    Quote Originally Posted by alagold View Post
    Not FR can play 4 FULLgames and not lose a yr eligibility. WOW WOW.before it basically NO play (unless medical/injury in one/2).This could be HUGE.

    I wonder who will profit the most.? We lose a lot of guys before 4 yrs but we need experience in our OFFense more than most so it might help there.Could have 5th yr guys but so will others. .WE also have mostly 2-3 star players who need a lot of development.

    The factories might lose a few more with the added exposure.
    What other thoughts are out there?
    I think it will have an impact on bigger schools. If Jake Fromm gets benched for Justin Fields he may decide to bail after 4 games. Eason lost a year basically just handing the ball off in blowouts. The same could happen with the Bama QBs. I don't think it impacts Tech much. Most of the guys that leave go to FCS schools. It's not as big of a concern to keep a year of eligibility in those cases.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date

    Aug 2011
    Posts

    6,470
    Quote Originally Posted by alagold View Post
    Not FR can play 4 FULLgames and not lose a yr eligibility. WOW WOW.before it basically NO play (unless medical/injury in one/2).This could be HUGE.

    I wonder who will profit the most.? We lose a lot of guys before 4 yrs but we need experience in our OFFense more than most so it might help there.Could have 5th yr guys but so will others. .WE also have mostly 2-3 star players who need a lot of development.

    The factories might lose a few more with the added exposure.
    What other thoughts are out there?
    I think this benefits the "haves" more than the "have-nots". How about this: you have three very good, but basically equal RB's. Like Chubb, Michel, and one more. Each play four games, and get redshirted. Next year they all three have experience and still have four years of eligibility left. Add two more very good recruits recruits and now you have five very good running backs (or fill in the position of your choice.) This benefits the factory schools.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date

    Aug 2011
    Posts

    6,470
    Quote Originally Posted by 3518techie View Post
    I think it will have an impact on bigger schools. If Jake Fromm gets benched for Justin Fields he may decide to bail after 4 games. Eason lost a year basically just handing the ball off in blowouts. The same could happen with the Bama QBs. I don't think it impacts Tech much. Most of the guys that leave go to FCS schools. It's not as big of a concern to keep a year of eligibility in those cases.
    This will hurt us because we have already shown a marked inability to manage our recruiting to fit our needs. This adds another layer of complexity that our staff will not be able to understand or use effectively. As I have said before, they seem to have no grasp of the concept that we need to field a team in 2018, but also again in 2019, 2020 etc. The bigger programs may lose some good players who transfer out because they can't get playing time, but generally speaking, I don't see many excellent players leaving Alabama or Oklahoma or Ohio State to come to Tech.
    Last edited by Yukonwreck; 06-15-2018 at 06:51 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date

    Aug 2011
    Posts

    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Yukonwreck View Post
    This will hurt us because we have already shown a marked inability to manage our recruiting to fit our needs. This adds another layer of complexity that our staff will not be able to understand or use effectively. As I have said before, they seem to have no grasp of the concept that we need to field a team in 2018, but also again in 2019, 2020 etc. The bigger programs may lose some good players who transfer out because they can't get playing time, but generally speaking, I don't see many excellent players leaving Alabama or Oklahoma or Ohio State to come to Tech.
    I would have to disagree. We are already seeing the results of added recruiting staff via the additional dollars flowing in. Case in point. We just offered a 2021 recruit. We will see more of this as the fruits of their labors come forth.

    Regarding the new rule, it reinforces my thoughts concerning the formation of an association of the big money, factory schools. This is just another step. Schools that are not in that circle will become training facilities for the big money boys. Tech takes a 3 star, bulks him up, coaches him up, gets him playing at a high level. His junior year, Alabama comes calling and he walks.


    Most of the guys that left went to FCS schools because they had no choice. Now they do.
    "We're not here to have a Norman Vincent Peale "Power of Positive Thinking" get together or a Georgia Tech Football Revival Meeting."

    Jim Hart

    "I don't think Tech will have another winning season under Paul Johnson, whether he stays another two years or ten years." 02/04/2018

    Yukonwreck.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date

    Aug 2011
    Posts

    6,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    I would have to disagree. We are already seeing the results of added recruiting staff via the additional dollars flowing in. Case in point. We just offered a 2021 recruit. We will see more of this as the fruits of their labors come forth.

    Regarding the new rule, it reinforces my thoughts concerning the formation of an association of the big money, factory schools. This is just another step. Schools that are not in that circle will become training facilities for the big money boys. Tech takes a 3 star, bulks him up, coaches him up, gets him playing at a high level. His junior year, Alabama comes calling and he walks.


    Most of the guys that left went to FCS schools because they had no choice. Now they do.
    Except for Colin Peek, I know of no other Tech player that left to go to a superior program. The players that have transferred in to Tech have come from some good, but not necessarily great programs. The relaxation of the sitting out period plus this red shirt change will usher in a new period of "college free agency", but I don't see us being very active in it. The more powerful teams will be forced to change the way they manage their talent, but the exchanging of players will be more likely from Michigan to Wisconsin or from Southern Cal to Stanford than from LSU to Georgia Tech (or vice versa). The fact is we don't get ANY players that Georgia or Texas A & M or Auburn want. And at the rate our recruits are not being "coached up" I don't see that changing anytime soon. Take for example, new commit Tony Amerson. Do you honestly think that after his freshman year in our system Alabama will come to snatch him from us? If they want him now, they will offer him now. In two years they will have half a dozen RB on scholarship. Even if three of those transfer out of Alabama, Saban will have dozens of "four-game redshirts" at numerous other programs that he can poach. After 2014, as good as it was, Paul Johnson knew he had to replace Justin Thomas in a couple of years. Then, surprise, Thomas runs out of eligibility and we had done nothing to replace him. Yes I understand Matthew Jordan got hurt, but we were woefully unprepared for that common occurrence. And I am confident we will be similarly unprepared to competitively navigate these new shark infested waters. As far as recruiting goes, we really don't seem to understand the whole process.
    Last edited by Yukonwreck; 06-15-2018 at 12:29 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date

    Aug 2011
    Location

    wadley ga
    Posts

    8,035
    Blog Entries
    8
    Not so clear as how our recruiting is better when we are still in the middle 40s and seems we do not plan for the next yr.......we were lucky JT had a good Sr year but once he left ..........we were starting a inexperience qb.....got to look out for tomorrow

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date

    Aug 2011
    Posts

    2,598
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Yukonwreck View Post
    Except for Colin Peek, I know of no other Tech player that left to go to a superior program. The players that have transferred in to Tech have come from some good, but not necessarily great programs. The relaxation of the sitting out period plus this red shirt change will usher in a new period of "college free agency", but I don't see us being very active in it. The more powerful teams will be forced to change the way they manage their talent, but the exchanging of players will be more likely from Michigan to Wisconsin or from Southern Cal to Stanford than from LSU to Georgia Tech (or vice versa). The fact is we don't get ANY players that Georgia or Texas A & M or Auburn want. And at the rate our recruits are not being "coached up" I don't see that changing anytime soon. Take for example, new commit Tony Amerson. Do you honestly think that after his freshman year in our system Alabama will come to snatch him from us? If they want him now, they will offer him now. In two years they will have half a dozen RB on scholarship. Even if three of those transfer out of Alabama, Saban will have dozens of "four-game redshirts" at numerous other programs that he can poach. After 2014, as good as it was, Paul Johnson knew he had to replace Justin Thomas in a couple of years. Then, surprise, Thomas runs out of eligibility and we had done nothing to replace him. Yes I understand Matthew Jordan got hurt, but we were woefully unprepared for that common occurrence. And I am confident we will be similarly unprepared to competitively navigate these new shark infested waters. As far as recruiting goes, we really don't seem to understand the whole process.
    Yuk,
    Got to agree on the idea that we will have players poached from us by factories as we ALREADY lose a bunch that leave even to lesser schools.
    But I disagree on the not having recruited a QB to replace JT.We did.It was that NC QB that got hurt,He looked like the real deal and losing him set us behind 2 yrs I believe.btw-did you see today we got another TM clone, from SC. .5-11, 175.He actually has some good passing stats but again it is from the shotgun.

    My tendency is to think this rule will NOT help us.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •