Other College Football

[DirkPiggler]

i have no problem with medical redshirts. legit injuries that required the player to miss time shouldn't be a penalty.

then there's the chambliss shit. complained about a sore throat at the start of the 22 season, didn't play because he was 4th string, and at the end of the season told the team doctor he was fine. at the ncaa hearing neither he or the school could produce anything that said he missed time because of a sore throat, and that's why the ncaa denied him. he got a fancy lawyer and a homer judge for the injunction. there was no 'it's the right thing' about it. we'll see if the ncaa appeals.

Allowing medical redshirts beyond the fifth year is what bred this stuff, along with covid of course.

If a player is concerned about not getting to play all four years because of an injury that might happen, go somewhere that will let you play as a freshman. You can transfer up later if needed.

There is nothing unfair about that as long as everyone plays by the same rule.  Where inequity comes in is when player A gets his medical redshirt for year six denied while player B gets to play in year seven.  Enforcement has always been arbitrary. 

[DRYANKNPULL]

NCAA should do away with all time limitations and just let players make a career out of playing college football.

[jdcatty]

https://x.com/dustitoff84/status/2022715905277362411?

Lotta truth here.

[animal]

he has a bachelors and a masters. working on another postgrad degree.

this guy's situation is little different than most. has only played two seasons due to multiple injuries he had to have surgery on. plus he still had a covid season.

I can understand that but still think fate is fate. ..


This guy should be moving on to a life after football and stop taking up a spot for a younger kid

[Lurk]

I can understand that but still think fate is fate. ..


This guy should be moving on to a life after football and stop taking up a spot for a younger kid

Son, we'd like you to come be injured for us at the university.

[Show-Me Hog]

TN QB Joey Aguilar denied a 6th year after 2 in junior college and 3 in D-I.

T-14 days until a Tennessee judge issues an injunction.  He can even cite the Mississippi case of Chambliss v. NCAA for support.

[vegashog]

the ruling was in a knoxville court and the decision by a vol alum.

and he was in juco 4 years at two different schools. he did redshirt one year and had another cancelled by covid.

[Show-Me Hog]

the ruling was in a knoxville court and the decision by a vol alum.

and he was in juco 4 years at two different schools. he did redshirt one year and had another cancelled by covid.

That's what I get from getting my information from an ESPN crawl.  It just said "eligibility denied" or however it said it.  I thought that meant the NCAA.  I did not know it was already a court case.

It does appear per the article he was 2 years in JUCO and 2 years at App State and 1 year at Tennessee for 5 total.

[arreferee]

Proposed rules changes are out for the 2026 season:

Changes proposed to penalty structure for targeting in DI football

For the 2026 season, the Division I Football Rules Subcommittee proposed a one-year trial rule to modify the penalty structure when players are called for targeting.

Under the recommendation, a player disqualified for targeting for the first time during the  season, regardless of which half it occurs, could play the next game.

Any player disqualified for targeting a second time during the season would be required to miss the first half of the next game. If a player is disqualified for a third targeting penalty during the season, the player would be required to miss the entire next game.

The Division I Football Bowl Subdivision and Division I Football Championship Subdivision Oversight Committees must approve all proposals before they become official. The FBS Oversight Committee is scheduled to review rule recommendations March 19, and the FCS Oversight Committee will discuss the proposals March 23.

"This continues the evolution of our targeting rule and balances the important safety impact with an appropriate penalty structure," said A.J. Edds, rules subcommittee chair and vice president of football administration for the Big Ten Conference. "We will closely monitor this one-year adjustment, and the committee believes it is important to enhance the progressive penalty to ensure proper coaching and player education."

Under the proposal, a conference has the option to initiate an appeals process after a player's second targeting offense. The appeal, which can cover the first and second targeting offenses, would be sent to the NCAA national coordinator of football officials, who would then facilitate a video review.

If the call is overturned on appeal, the player would be able to play without sitting out the first half of the next game. 

Currently, players disqualified for targeting are disqualified for the remainder of that game. If the penalty occurs in the second half, the player must sit out the first half of the next game.

Since the 2022 season, conference offices have been allowed to appeal second-half targeting disqualifications to the NCAA national coordinator of officials in hopes of having the call overturned so the player would not have to miss the first half of the next game.

Uniforms

The rules subcommittee proposed that players wear leg coverings from the top of their shoes to the bottom of their pants.

Players would have to wear the same covering style and colors for that particular game.

Players out of compliance with the rule would have to leave the game for at least one down and correct the issue. A team would receive a warning for the first offense.

If a team has a second offense under this proposal, the offending team would be given a 5-yard penalty. Any subsequent violations of the rule would result in a 15-yard penalty.

"The current look of the uniform is clearly not meeting the expectations of the college football community," Edds said. "This will take a collective effort by administrators, coaches and officials to communicate expectations to players and equipment managers. This proposal, we believe, is definitive and gives us a chance for consistent enforcement across Division I football."

Fair catch kick

Under a new proposal, a team could choose to attempt a fair catch kick after a completed or awarded fair catch. The kick would be a field goal place kick with a holder (no tee) or a drop kick from the spot where the returner caught the ball.

If the ensuing kick goes through the uprights, it would add 3 points to that team's total. The defense would be at least 10 yards from the spot of the kick.

Subcommittee members think this further aligns Division I with similar rules that exist in NFL and high school football.

Other rule proposals

•     On punts where jersey number exceptions (players who do not wear numbers 50-79) are used, the snapper and two adjacent linemen on either side who are lined up in (or touching) the tackle box are ineligible receivers by position and become exceptions to the numbering rule when the snapper takes his position. This makes it clear which players are eligible and ineligible receivers in the formation.
•     While the subcommittee is comfortable with the administration of unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, the group recommended clarifying the rule to give on-field officials guidance to align with the current game. Officials would focus on unsportsmanlike conduct where someone taunts an opponent; actions that interfere with game administration; and celebrations found demeaning to the game or opponent.
•     Offensive pass interference penalties would be 10 yards. Currently, the penalty for offensive pass interference is 15 yards.

[Lurk]

Matt is always funny.