Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

my question is why?

does it take the place of the redshirt year? If that's the case, maybe I can see it, but only in cases like Josh Harris', where one game cost him a full year of eligibility. Although I guess if any player is a real "difference maker", they're going to be gone in two or three years regardless, but I still think the current system is just fine.

I have always been hazy on this issue to. So this means they can play five full years? And why for only football. What makes football different than the 30 other NCAA sports? It seems really odd to me and I don't see it ever happening.

The funny thing is that this could help to level the playing field for D1-A even more. Justified or not, players from BCS conferences are much more likely to be drafted. Assuming this stays true, this would allow mid-major teams to field more experienced teams because of other teams losing players to the draft after 2-3 years.

Undoubtedly, there will be players that wouldn't have been redshirted before that will get five years. Each of the players that end up doing this eats into the available number of available scholorships schools have, so there could be some opportunity for players to trickle down as has happened with the reduction of scholorships from 95-85.

Good points, FalconKing! While I'm still not big on the idea, I didn't think of the benefits in that particular regard.

Only question is, would they officially name the 5-year rule after Wasean Tait? Or wait until they give players 8 years of eligibility?