2.3.1.1.1.3 - Player Eligibility - Five Season Maximum.

[WKU-Perrone-76]

Per Dylan Allred

2.3.1.1.1.3 - Players are only permitted to play at any point during a maximum of five seasons in NCDA sanctioned events. A season is designated as the period of time from July 1-June 30.

Rationale: This would help out schools that are less likely to have players sticking around for more than this limit. (This may be considered as a constitutional policy as well)

[GVSU-Bailey]

I have one tiny problem with this rule. First of all, obviously a player doing more than 5 seasons is a rare occurrence, but here is my main issue:

With the league in the situation that it is in, I don't see this as a huge benefit. This would cause someone like McCarthy from possibly not being able to build a team at a new school (Siena Heights) because his eligibility is up. There are going to be situations where players graduate and go somewhere for grad school, but won't be allowed to build a new NCDA team at that school because of this rule.

So, here is my edit to the proposed rule: Rather than having a strict five year limit, it should be a five years on one team limit. Basically this would stop a player from playing six or seven seasons at one school, but would still allow some graduate of an NCDA school the ability to create a team at his new school where he is taking graduate classes.

I think maybe ten of twenty years down the road this rule could become more strict at a five year limit (or even four years), but for now I think it would benefit the growth of the league to allow more than five years for players who switch schools. Keep a 5-year limit for a player at a certain school, but make an exception for someone who transitions to a new school.

[peters27]

Kevin - What if a player attends graduate school at the same institution (Felix) but has already played for 5 years during their undergrad?

I agree with the 5 years at the same school policy, I just think it should not limit those at the graduate level in any way. Obviously I'm very biased in this position, but what benefit does the league actually see from kicking those out who clearly love the league and want to help it grow if they managed to stay around for 5 years to play?

And don't feed me an argument about being an alumni and coming to help referee and contribute in that facet, because I would choose to play for a team rather than retire into alumni status 100,000/100,000 if given the choice.

[GVSU-Bailey]

Wes- I'm not totally against letting a graduate student play at that school for more than five years. Dylan Fettig and Paul Hillebrand both did it here at GVSU. I think in the future there should end up being a limit, but with our league in its current state, it isn't a huge negative having someone in grad school still playing NCDA dodgeball.

[WKU-Perrone-76]

In my opinion I don't think this should be considered for a rulebook or constitution policy for the following reasons:

1) It adds work to the already limited NCDA staff having to find records of when players began their play, keep up with that, and enforce it. It's very easy right now to send a roster to the Sport Club representative at the respective institution and ask, "Is everyone on this list a current student and allowed to participate in intercollegiate competition?", rather than asking, "Has everyone here played less than five years?" I know for a fact a lot of recreation departments don't keep updated records of that type of thing, it would require a lot of research and digging.

2) There have been situations with WKU players where students would play the first game of the season in the Fall, not play anymore the rest of that semester, then in the Spring they would study abroad or do an exchange program, but then come back the following Fall and be a full participant. What would we do in that type of situation? Because technically they did play in that season, but it was only the first game. Would we count that toward their five years?

3) Most importantly, the rules we already have in place for Pursuit of Degree and Institution Eligibility should already nip this in the butt. I don't think we should penalize people for going to school longer, as long as they're doing it for reasons outside of dodgeball. If a student wants to play dodgeball but also wants to only enroll in a Jogging class so they have eligibility, that is not okay.

[Zigmister]

Bomis mentioned Felix's #3, and I think that alone will nip most of this.

I can see UMD's look at the situation, they haven't really had a chance to have the kind of grad players that other regions play. Even DePaul had an unwritten rule not to roster players that played more than 4-5 years, in favor of giving younger players a chance to play. So I get it. But as long as we protecting the collegiate student athlete focus, not just letting people pay - to - play, that's the best course.
Our current eligibility rules do it fine in my opinion.

[Spencer Jardine - SVSU]

I would assume we would call this the "Spencer Jardine" rule?

[Zigmister]

The point is, we don't see many graduate students playing beyond 4 years in the NCDA, in the general scheme. But, there are many examples of Michigan, Ohio, and DePaul schools, even a few at UK and WKU. Very very few from the East Coast region. There are examples from East Coast teams through, one bachelor from JMU played with VCU as a masters student.

But generally they graduate and don't consider playing NCDA dodgeball again. For this reason, I can see why they'd be confused as to Masters/PhD seekers still playing on their rosters, and why this rule would be proposed. Just to shed a little more light to why this would be proposed, although I think existing eligibility rules would prevent players just trying to play NCDA dodgeball, and keep it to students playing in this college league.

[cobrien18]

I don't think we should prohibit a student from playing in the league and spending their time and money to play a game that they enjoy. Also, the people who stick around for many years generally genuinely care about the league and only hope for the best for the league. I don't think they are the type of people we want to restrict.

[Spencer Jardine - SVSU]

And for the record in my 6th and 7th season the classes I was taking did involve things like Core Workout, Swimming, and Boot camp conditioning. But I was also retaking classes like Stats and Communication Intensive classes to raise my GPA. At SVSU if you retake a class your old grades like the D's I got in those classes can be replaced by the higher grades you get so I did have a legit reason for still attending school.

As for trying to limit players from playing, why in the heck would we ever want to limit players who want to pay dues and contribute in the NCDA right now? I don't even see how this helps new teams who don't have players like Dylan or me in the NCDA. I can't name the number of times the old veterans in the NCDA have helped new teams get on their feet, showed them how to play the game, and more importantly mentored new players on their own teams to eventually take over teams. If I retired after 4 years SVSU's new Captain Cody Putnam wouldn't of even started playing dodgeball. (He was my roommate my 5th year of college) Countless other recruits wouldn't have signed up. Also what if I wanted to go back to grad school at say MSU, GVSU, or Western Michigan? Would the NCDA not benefit from a new dodgeball team with someone whos played in the NCDA before starting a team at a new Michigan school like WMU?

Of all the new rules proposed this year I will fight this one to death. The more people in the NCDA the better. Don't you dare try to take me away from my family

[ssmith19]

Jake Leski and I have discussed this at length and I do think that eligibility limit(s) are a good idea. I don't think there's an exact number that can be determined as the perfect solution to this but here's what I think would be the best starting place for a rule:

1) A player has up to five years of undergraduate eligibility. Once those five years are up, that's it. So even if a player like myself wasn't graduating next year like I am, next season would be my last season of available undergrad play.

2) Players get one year of graduate eligibility.

3) If a player graduates in four years from undergrad then their 5th year is allowed to roll over to graduate play, allowing them two years of graduate eligibility.

This isn't perfect by any stretch of the mind. There are a lot of factors to take into account. But I think Dylan starting this process is a good thing. Maybe we can create a sub-rule type thing (I don't know what they're called) that allows for special consideration for someone like McCarthy who goes to a new school and creates a team while there, but to me this would be a solid starting point.

[peters27]

May 20, 2015 10:16:58 GMT -6 ssmith19 said:

Jake Leski and I have discussed this at length and I do think that eligibility limit(s) are a good idea. I don't think there's an exact number that can be determined as the perfect solution to this but here's what I think would be the best starting place for a rule:

1) A player has up to five years of undergraduate eligibility. Once those five years are up, that's it. So even if a player like myself wasn't graduating next year like I am, next season would be my last season of available undergrad play.

2) Players get one year of graduate eligibility.

3) If a player graduates in four years from undergrad then their 5th year is allowed to roll over to graduate play, allowing them two years of graduate eligibility.

This isn't perfect by any stretch of the mind. There are a lot of factors to take into account. But I think Dylan starting this process is a good thing. Maybe we can create a sub-rule type thing (I don't know what they're called) that allows for special consideration for someone like McCarthy who goes to a new school and creates a team while there, but to me this would be a solid starting point.

So uhhh why exactly do you think this is such a fantastic idea?

[Spencer Jardine - SVSU]

May 20, 2015 10:16:58 GMT -6 ssmith19 said:

Jake Leski and I have discussed this at length and I do think that eligibility limit(s) are a good idea. I don't think there's an exact number that can be determined as the perfect solution to this but here's what I think would be the best starting place for a rule:

1) A player has up to five years of undergraduate eligibility. Once those five years are up, that's it. So even if a player like myself wasn't graduating next year like I am, next season would be my last season of available undergrad play.

2) Players get one year of graduate eligibility.

3) If a player graduates in four years from undergrad then their 5th year is allowed to roll over to graduate play, allowing them two years of graduate eligibility.

This isn't perfect by any stretch of the mind. There are a lot of factors to take into account. But I think Dylan starting this process is a good thing. Maybe we can create a sub-rule type thing (I don't know what they're called) that allows for special consideration for someone like McCarthy who goes to a new school and creates a team while there, but to me this would be a solid starting point.

Meaning, besides coming up with a formula to enforce it. Explain why it should be enforced Mr Smith! EXPLAIN YOURSELF SIR!

[peters27]

May 21, 2015 23:09:27 GMT -6 Spencer Jardine - SVSU said:

May 20, 2015 10:16:58 GMT -6 ssmith19 said:

Jake Leski and I have discussed this at length and I do think that eligibility limit(s) are a good idea. I don't think there's an exact number that can be determined as the perfect solution to this but here's what I think would be the best starting place for a rule:

1) A player has up to five years of undergraduate eligibility. Once those five years are up, that's it. So even if a player like myself wasn't graduating next year like I am, next season would be my last season of available undergrad play.

2) Players get one year of graduate eligibility.

3) If a player graduates in four years from undergrad then their 5th year is allowed to roll over to graduate play, allowing them two years of graduate eligibility.

This isn't perfect by any stretch of the mind. There are a lot of factors to take into account. But I think Dylan starting this process is a good thing. Maybe we can create a sub-rule type thing (I don't know what they're called) that allows for special consideration for someone like McCarthy who goes to a new school and creates a team while there, but to me this would be a solid starting point.

Meaning, besides coming up with a formula to enforce it. Explain why it should be enforced Mr Smith! EXPLAIN YOURSELF SIR!

Spencer not every school has people as devoted as us to furthering our teams and the league. They're too busy graduating and moving forward with their lives. They just don't understand.

[ssmith19]

In some ways it does add to the development of teams. Nobodys denying that both Spencer or Wes would make any roster in the league, but if you're there for 7 years then thats a roster spot away from a potential new player who could be just as skilled as both of you.

Take Brent Gromer from JMU, he could play this upcoming fall but he's told me he doesn't plan to because he's taking up a spot from a new recruit or an improving returner.

At some point there has to be a limit where we say "yes you've played and we appreciate, but maybe its best for a person to serve the league in a different capacity than being on the court"