![karan higdon could get an extra year [Bryan Fuller]](/sites/default/files/styles/850xn/public/2018-06/37662660692_2c02ac1a5e_z.jpg.webp?itok=_tP-j5KA)
New Rules: No More Restricting Transfers And Redshirt Freedom
[lead image: Bryan Fuller]
Two fairly major NCAA rule changes just came down the pipe, and both are unambiguously good. #1 is an elimination of most transfer restrictions:
The Division I Council adopted a proposal this week that creates a new “notification-of-transfer” model. This new system allows a student to inform his or her current school of a desire to transfer, then requires that school to enter the student’s name into a national transfer database within two business days. Once the student-athlete’s name is in the database, other coaches are free to contact that individual.
The "most" in the previous sentence is because of this: "Conferences, however, still can make rules that are more restrictive than the national rule." Many conferences had extra restrictions against intra-conference transfers as of about a decade ago; as anyone who's followed the success talismans known as Beilein grad transfers knows, the Big Ten did away with theirs in 2012. I'm not sure if other conferences have followed suit. I kind of doubt the SEC has since bolting for juco for one year and then bouncing back to another conference school is a fairly common practice.
This hereby ends the irritating news cycle that goes:
- Player Wants To Transfer
- School Says Player Can't Go To Various Schools
- Outrage!
- "Sorry, Sorry, I'm Trying To Delete It" Says School
- Player Goes To Iowa State Anyway
So it's got that going for us. Also a slight inch away from NCAA serfdom.
[After THE JUMP: suspense! what's the other rule change! crap i shouldn't have mentioned it in the title]
Rule #2 is a change to redshirt legislation that allows a freshman to play in up to four games while maintaining their bonus year of eligibility:
College athletes competing in Division I football can participate in up to four games in a season without using a season of competition, the Division I Council decided this week at its meeting in Indianapolis.
That was proposed earlier, but somewhat amazingly it got held up for a revision that prohibits this rule from being used by "midyear enrollees who participate in postseason football competition that occurs before or during the student-athlete’s first term at a school." IE, early enrollees participating in bowl games. Football! It is sensible.
No word on whether this change is retroactive, which would buy Karan Higdon and Nico Collins and maybe some other guys an extra year. Not that Higdon is particularly likely to use his.
Opening up any game on the schedule for a freshman—and dropping the sore pinky charade that ensued afterwards—brings a whole new dimension to roster sorting and implementation. If you suck you can get a head start on the future four games early. Freshmen who haven't used their four games can show en masse during the bowl game. You can rotate through special teams players to preserve redshirts. Pretty much everyone who doesn't establish themselves an actual contributor in year one should be able to maintain a fifth year, should that be mutually agreeable when the time comes. As an Insane Redshirt Maintenance Zealot, this is personally gratifying.
I think you meant they came down the PIKE.
-that guy
Actually, Merriam-Webster states that either can be used. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/down-the-pike-vs-down-the-pipe-idiom-usage
- Also that guy
Technically, while down the Pike is older, both versions, pipe and pike, are in wide use and considered correct nowadays.
I'll get off your lawn.
Being considered correct is not the same as being correct. The tragedy that enough people have misused a phrase long enough to force grammarians to throw in the towel doesn’t make something right. Otherwise, you shall be on the business end of my “supposably irregardless” pipe moving forward. OC (original commenter) was right. Something is “coming down the pike” is the correct etymology, and thus, the correct usage.
- Uber That Guy
Being considered correct is not the same as being correct.
Riiiiiiight. Because language never changes.
Uh oh! A Prescriptivist and a Descriptivist have found each other in the comments section! Will MGoBlog survive? News at 11.
Most people nowadays don't know what "pike" even refers to, as the term turnpike isn't widely used anymore outside of certain parts of the US.
And The Grammarist website reports " In current searchable news publications, down the pipe appears once for every two instances of down the pike".
There are a LOT of words that used to be socially acceptable and are "correct" that aren't in use anymore, due to ..... reasons ..... this is hardly something to get all worked up over.
It's all about the freeways now.
I get it, but, what are their statistics on the misuse of "begging the question" or "I could care less"? Would be rather enlightening to find out.
Begging the question is almost never used "properly". And that's fine. It actually makes way more sense the way it's usually used nowadays. The origin of the phrase is archaic.
That begs the question - what is the proper usage of begging the question?
I learned the correct usage of "begging the question" in my philosophy course taught by Abraham Kaplan. I learned a lot more from him, too. It's the Michigan difference.
Thank you.
I remember when “Standard English” was a real thing & I could speak it as well as write it.
Now I speak & write a muddled mess like everyone else.
Ah... so we are comparing an idiom with using fake words now? Supposably and irregardless are not even words. Last I checked, pipe is a word.
Also, 'coming down the pipe' makes sense as a standalone phrase. If 'coming down the pike' did not exist, it is not hard to imagine someone using the phrase 'coming down the pipe.'
Same with 'bald faced lie' and 'bold faced lie.' If anything, 'bold face lie' makes a lot more sense, as a bold typeface is something that stands out. Yet the original term is 'bald faced lie' because somebody had a problem with men that couldn't grow beards? Stupid. Just because something is older, doesn't mean it isn't also stupider.
You've picked a strange hill to cry on, sir.
If I didn't cry on strange hills I'd have nothing to live for.
Yet the original term is 'bald faced lie' because somebody had a problem with men that couldn't grow beards?
I'd bet a million dollars that's not the origin. Would guess something like out in the open or exposed.
I was thinking along the lines of a "bald faced lie" as one being told without expression, without a tell to give away the lie, poker faced.
It's actually a little bit of both, so I'll take $500k and call it a day - let me know when you want to arrange payment.
"Bald-faced" actually was not the original phrase, it was "barefaced" (Link). And "barefaced" was a reference to being uncovered or shaven (Link):
1580s, "with face uncovered or shaven;" see bare (adj.) + face (n.). Thus, "unconcealed" (c. 1600), and, in a bad sense, "shameless, audacious" (1670s). Compare effrontery. The half-French bare-vis(adj.) conveyed the same sense in Middle English. Related: Barefacedly.
Of course, this also had the figurative meaning of the person's face being "out in the open" but that was a specific reference to the nature of an individual's face.
There are multiple articles referencing the original shaven/beard origin of it: Link, Link, Link, Link, Link
unfortunately, when grammarians throw in the towel and stick something in the dictionary, it in fact does make it right. I hate it too, but that's how it works. The rulebook follows actual usage as it evolves, in language's case, not the other way 'round.
This is what you might call a rabbit hole, or a tangent...
I can't believe I'm still reading this thread... but by all intensive purposes...
*Simultaneously, my father's eyes roll back into his head.*
Yes! We must nip this kind of thing in the butt!
Buzz Killington avatar checks out :)
But “down the pipe” makes just as much sense as the original. It could have become a phrase meaning the same thing on its own. “Fade to Bolivian” this is not.
a satisfying upvote for the 'supposably irregardless' mention
Being "in common use" is not the same as being correct. But "being considered correct" implies that it is in such widespread usage that it is now correct.
English is a living and constantly changing language. You should never get used to a phrase as it was when you were a child.
"Literally" now has, as one of its accepted uses, the exact opposite definition as when I was in high school. It is what it is.
I don't agree that the meaning of "literally" has changed. Yes, many people say it to mean "figuratively." But that doesn't make it correct and I cringe every time I hear it.
One other thing about "literally: vs. "figuratively." I belong to a national civic organization for which I had to make a talk the other day. A staffer always writes the talks of lay members. He gave me a text that misused "literally." I don't have to tell you that he didn't go to Michigan. But at least he understood when I told him that I needed to correct it.
Bizarre. MaizenBlueKzoo makes the same point 5 minutes earlier and gets 3 downvotes while you are up 3. Must be the delivery.
I didn't say that.
Then you haven't earned your username.
For all intensive purposes, this thread went directly down the pipe right from the comment.
I could care less
For all intensive purposes, this thread went directly down the pipe right from the comment.
(edit) ...the first comment.
My co-worker says Blessing in the Skies confusing it with Blessing in Disguise. That drives me insane!
I feel shocked
I had to read this twice. You mean to tell be the NCAA handed down 2 rules that actually benefit the student/athletes? Next you’ll be telling me they’re really going to investigate MSU.
With the change to the redshirting rules in #2, what is even the point of having a redshirt rule anymore? The changed rule now basically gives you 5 years to play 4.33 seasons, is it that much worse to just give 5 full years of eligibility? I don't really see the point, since I think we've gone well beyond the original intention of the redshirt rule. I think any playing time restrictions are bad, so why not let players play 5 years, if they can?
The primary difference is that there are guys that are clearly ready to play on teams, that should play because they are the best at their position. But there are also a large group of players that are borderline. That may have some potential but are still figuring things out and you want to see how he performs first before burning his redshirt (Dymonte Thomas comes to mind). There are some guys you just want to give some experience to see how they handle it and because you have snaps to give in a particular game, but have no intention for them to be regular contributors (Higdon), etc.
So the major difference here is that a player isn't punished for a coach/player seeing how a guy performs in a real game and realizing they aren't ready. Because it isn't always immediately apparent in practice, and it isn't immediately known how some guys will improve (or not) throughout their first year, adjusting to the rigors of college football and class, etc.
I think this will effect QB's the most. Now true frosh's will be able to get in some solid duty during their freshmen year. Coaches will have to be better politicians to manage scrub time.
Just to be clear, would it affect QBs or have an effect on QBs?
-that grammar asshole
That doesn't answer his question, though. Why not just give everybody 5 years of eligibility and quit with the dog-and-pony show? What is the point of an "8-game redshirt" for a guy that you've determined isn't useful enough to continue seeing the field anyway? What practical purpose does that serve?
So as not to encourage schools to put their players on a five-year plan to get their undergrad degree.
Hell, give them 5 years plus a no-play redshirt year and eliminate all medical redshirts. Also, let them go to the NFL after two years and being certified ready by an impartial panel.
It is the NFL that has the rule you must be three years removed from high school to be draft eligible. It has nothing to do with the NCAA and it is a good rule.
Why not 6, or 7, or even have a limit? The 4 years is supposed to align with the number of years it takes to get a college degree. The original idea behind FR not being eligible is because they needed to focus on school and weren't ready to compete at that level. That isn't always the case anymore, but often still is. So 4 years of actually playing and regularly contributing still seems quite different than just having 5 years.
I also don't see a hard-and-fast 4-games as a dog-and-pony show. It mitigates the injury dog-and-pony show they had while still retaining the intent of 5 years to play 4.
But the time demands on student-athletes are different from those of a regular student so if they possibly need an extra year to get their degree, what’s the crime in that? Just give the kids 5 years to graduate/play, there is really no downside to it.
That is only half true. Keep in mind football players are on campus every semester, including summer when most kids go home. Also, notice a lot of guys graduate in 3 years and grad transfer, and end up with a Master's in 5.
Comments