|
Post by peters27 on May 22, 2015 15:27:03 GMT -6
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" I understand that that is the way Brent feels, but at the same time I don't think that is the decision of the league to tell someone who is enrolled in college courses, undergraduate or otherwise, that they can or cannot play if they want to. I think that's the decision of the club relating to that player. This isn't division one where schools are profiting on us. It's a club sport, and if a club feels as though it is better off with the help of a veteran player on its roster, then who are you to say they don't have the right as a student to play?
|
|
cg
Full Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by cg on May 22, 2015 21:08:30 GMT -6
While the "must be working on an actual degree" thing makes sense, anything beyond that feels like something that should be left to the individual teams. Case in point: Me (MSU '03-'10). After undergrad, I made a conscious decision to not go on a roster unless the team was so shortstaffed that I would not take playing time away from any other teammate interested in playing that game. In point of fact, I was asked to play on some more competitive MSU rosters in law school and declined for the exact reasons that some have put forth on increasing opportunities for younger players.
The key to all this, however, is that it was by choice. If a grad student wants to play, and the team wants him to play, what is the point of other teams saying "No, you can't do that"? I'm all for structure, but when it gets to the point of dictating how teams can manage themselves I start to get real skittish.
The NCDA is a league of students. Making rules about what kind of student can participate, or how long a student can participate, seems overbearing, and it further implies that individual teams are not competent enough to decide to do what is best for their individual situation. I'm very much against instituting a five-year eligibility rule.
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Fettig on May 26, 2015 22:08:07 GMT -6
From my experience, the people that stay and play for 5+ years are people who the league wants to stay. Mccarthy made a new team, Felix and I are now on the executive board, Spencer is a forum god (and should really start a team at WMU). The more years people spend in something, the more involved they get. This rule would discourage people from getting intimately involved with the league and would hurt growth the the organization.
|
|