Bear Down Wildcats

Thoughts?

I think it would be a great thing and never knew why football did not have an early signing day for high school recruits. Will take some of the de-commit drama off the table and would have meant Tabor would be a wildcat right now that bum

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recru ... e-football

I think it gets voted on in June and would be in affect potentially this year. I am not sure why it wouldn't pass

Seems like a no-brainer and I am in favor of reducing drama and late flips etc...though i would think it would make a coaching transition even more impactful as so many recruits would be spoken for by the time the new coach is in place. I could see where anybody that might be considering a coaching change would be against it for that reason.

I like it but it's not early enough IMO. They should have it in August prior to the season but I guess December is a start.

They should just let kids sign NLI's when they want with a deadline of say, March 1st. This way, if they sign early, say September, it's their fault if the coach leaves/fires/et al. They knew that signing up that there was a chance what they signed up for early could change. And I think kids who would sign early are probably signing up for the program/school. Kids that sign late are truly torn or just creating drama and already know anyways.

Saw a new rule proposal where freshman can play 4 games and still keep their redshirt. Like it.

Merkin wrote:Saw a new rule proposal where freshman can play 4 games and still keep their redshirt. Like it.

I don't.

Merkin wrote:Saw a new rule proposal where freshman can play 4 games and still keep their redshirt. Like it.

One more step until 5 years of eligibility

MrBug708 wrote:

Merkin wrote:Saw a new rule proposal where freshman can play 4 games and still keep their redshirt. Like it.

One more step until 5 years of eligibility

Basically. That's not secondarily a good thing either. I still don't know what to think about the early signing period other than some recruitments are gonna be very interesting.

Why is not allowing 5 years a good rule or allowing 4 games to be played as a freshman. I see only upside for all parties. Please elaborate

azcat49 wrote:Why is not allowing 5 years a good rule or allowing 4 games to be played as a freshman. I see only upside for all parties. Please elaborate

I am curious too. They recently changed the basketball rules where a first year player (frosh or transfer) can now play in exhibition games and not lose a season of eligibility if they do play. Gives the coaches more time to see if a first year player can contribute or not.

With the PAC and NCAA cutting back on football practices and contact drills, it seems giving a frosh a chance to play in a real game would be quite beneficial to all parties.

Merkin wrote:

azcat49 wrote:Why is not allowing 5 years a good rule or allowing 4 games to be played as a freshman. I see only upside for all parties. Please elaborate

I am curious too. They recently changed the basketball rules where a first year player (frosh or transfer) can now play in exhibition games and not lose a season of eligibility if they do play. Gives the coaches more time to see if a first year player can contribute or not.

With the PAC and NCAA cutting back on football practices and contact drills, it seems giving a frosh a chance to play in a real game would be quite beneficial to all parties.

The basketball rule is great. I just can't handle the one and dones and that's why I don't follow or watch college basketball anymore. I'm old school. When a true freshman redshirts, he does so to learn the playbook, practice, workout, and not have as much pressure taking his first classes....which is important. If a coach is recruiting correctly, almost every single freshman should be redshirted and there shouldn't be a need to show case. For smaller schools this might benefit a bit but for bigger schools it might not be that necessary. Incoming freshmen have a ton of pressure on them from the get go.