EO - Max 5 years and 1 transfer option allowed.

[IUPNation]

Seriously??? GV has open dates every year and has offered to any and all takers. AND, they pay travel expenses for any team willing to come to Lubbers. Has IUP done a home and home with Mines, Pueblo, Pitt State, Indianapolis and will start one with West Texas A&M and Charleston this fall. And, by the way, we play Ferris, Saginaw Valley and Davenport every year. You’d finish middle of the pack in the GLIAC. You’re making a fool of yourself.

Your school's scheduling issues because it was solely responsible for so many schools fleeing the GLIAC...is not IUP's problem to solve.

If you need that date....I think it's fair you fire up the Infamous Grand MAC Valley private jets and fly into Pittsburgh to come over to IUP three times in a four game series. People from PA really don't want to travel to Ohio and Meatchicken if we don't have to........

Oh....and IUP vs GLIAC over the years....

IUP 6-1 vs Grand MAC Valley
IUP 5-1 vs Ferris Bueller State
IUP 1-3 vs Hillsdale Bible Camp (all played before the Cignetti Era that crushed the GLIAC)
IUP 8-2 vs Northwood Car Dealer Training School
IUP 1-1 Vs Saggy Valley

.and vs teams that fled the GLIAC

IUP 2-1 vs Findlay
IUP 5-1 vs Ashland

I'd say 28 - 10 is doing okay....

That alone should give your school an incentive to come to Indiana County to even up that series...only need to make 5 trips over......

[IUPNation]

Piggybacking onto this thread and trying to get it back on track from the pointless pissing match above; last week, Yahoo Sports reported that the NCAA is proposing a major change to athletic eligibility rules that are broadly in line with President Trump's executive order, but was being considered before the order was issued. For those who don't feel like following the link and reading, the basic tenets of the proposal:

1. All NCAA student-athletes would have five years of eligibility starting from whichever comes first between his or her HS graduation or 19th birthday
2. No more redshirts (including medical) or hardship waivers with only three potential exemptions being considered:
   1. Religions Missions
   2. Military Service
   3. Maternity Leave

It's not clear what graduation date/age would be used for internationals with different amateur systems (i.e. those who participate in a development academy or play for a 16/18/20U affiliate of a professional team), or whether this would give extra eligibility to current fourth year players that would otherwise be out. It also doesn't change anything about transfer policy.

I think this is a solid proposal for a few reasons:

1. Medical redshirts and hardship waivers were always a mistake in my eyes, as anything granted on a case-by-case basis, especially retroactively, is just asking to get sued if the decisions are different, and we've seen this play out multiple times with cases like Trinidad Chambliss.
2. A blanket five years indirectly solves the JUCO and NAIA eligibility questions.
3. Redshirts are borderline pointless in the open transfer era, and even if the rules rollback to a single transfer, it's still more and more difficult to get guys to stay when they don't play.
4. Five years is more reflective of how long it takes many students to get a degree between factors like transfers, major changes, time demands for student-athletes, and plain bad luck in class selection or pre-reqs.
5. Five years serves as a de facto age limit of 24 (presumably with a bit of wiggle room for student athletes who start a fifth season at 23 and 9-10 months and turn 24, although that's yet to be determined), which would bring intercollegiate athletics back to being primarily for normally aged college students.

The biggest change I would make to this proposal would be to get rid of all the proposed exemptions, or at least cut out the religious and military exemptions. The religious mission exemption is just begging to get sued by someone who's irreligious, adheres to a faith without mission practices, or even someone who feels they were wrongly denied a mission exemption. The military service exemption would likely be such a small number of people that I don't think it's worth making an exemption for, especially for those who might not even leave the states in their enlistment. Maternity is the only one I see as maybe worthwhile, and I would change it to maternity OR paternity to avoid being sued by a male student-athlete who fathers a child, and would reasonably like time away to help care for him or her.

See..the NCAA could sort it out without the help of a memory care facility resident….

[Predatory Primates]

Most of you have never been to Allendale MI. Not a metropolis. Don’t blink or you’ll miss it! And, IUP Knothead contributor….Brian Kelly left for a D1 job. He certainly wasn’t fired.

It's an exurb of a metro area with over a million people. I assume that makes it easier to fill a D1 stadium than say Pittsburg KS. I could definitely be wrong, though?

[TheBigCat2192]

The problem I see with denying medical redshirts is students being tossed out in the cold once injured. I know it happens some now, but I could see it becoming automatic without the exemption.

That could easily be solved by mandating that the scholarship stay in place for the year/semester/whatever length of time even if a player is injured. The point is to avoid giving extra full years because of injury, which I’ve always thought was dumb, and which has been one of the major points of contention in certain eligibility lawsuits.

[Thelakerman]

Most of you have never been to Allendale MI. Not a metropolis. Don’t blink or you’ll miss it! And, IUP Knothead contributor….Brian Kelly left for a D1 job. He certainly wasn’t fired.

[Thelakerman]

They do not offer the same number of scholarships as every other D2 school. They offer the MAXIMUM allowed scholarships for D2. The majority of schools, especially the private ones, do not offer that same number. They also don't have the "discount" you get when not having to offer a full scholarship for in-state players.

Grand Valley plays by the rules. But they have so many advantages compared to most other D2 schools it is laughable you think it is an even playing field. It is only even in terms of "being within the rules".

Exactly….same rules as everyone else. Thank you for proving my point.

I’m not sure what advantages you’re talking about. There are 6 D1 schools within 3 hours of campus and 6 more D2 schools all drawing from the same talent pool. Not sure what advantages you’re referring to. No doubt GV emphasizes their athletic programs and other schools don’t. Not really our problem is it!

[Predatory Primates]

Piggybacking onto this thread and trying to get it back on track from the pointless pissing match above; last week, Yahoo Sports reported that the NCAA is proposing a major change to athletic eligibility rules that are broadly in line with President Trump's executive order, but was being considered before the order was issued. For those who don't feel like following the link and reading, the basic tenets of the proposal:

1. All NCAA student-athletes would have five years of eligibility starting from whichever comes first between his or her HS graduation or 19th birthday
2. No more redshirts (including medical) or hardship waivers with only three potential exemptions being considered:
   1. Religions Missions
   2. Military Service
   3. Maternity Leave

It's not clear what graduation date/age would be used for internationals with different amateur systems (i.e. those who participate in a development academy or play for a 16/18/20U affiliate of a professional team), or whether this would give extra eligibility to current fourth year players that would otherwise be out. It also doesn't change anything about transfer policy.

I think this is a solid proposal for a few reasons:

1. Medical redshirts and hardship waivers were always a mistake in my eyes, as anything granted on a case-by-case basis, especially retroactively, is just asking to get sued if the decisions are different, and we've seen this play out multiple times with cases like Trinidad Chambliss.
2. A blanket five years indirectly solves the JUCO and NAIA eligibility questions.
3. Redshirts are borderline pointless in the open transfer era, and even if the rules rollback to a single transfer, it's still more and more difficult to get guys to stay when they don't play.
4. Five years is more reflective of how long it takes many students to get a degree between factors like transfers, major changes, time demands for student-athletes, and plain bad luck in class selection or pre-reqs.
5. Five years serves as a de facto age limit of 24 (presumably with a bit of wiggle room for student athletes who start a fifth season at 23 and 9-10 months and turn 24, although that's yet to be determined), which would bring intercollegiate athletics back to being primarily for normally aged college students.

The biggest change I would make to this proposal would be to get rid of all the proposed exemptions, or at least cut out the religious and military exemptions. The religious mission exemption is just begging to get sued by someone who's irreligious, adheres to a faith without mission practices, or even someone who feels they were wrongly denied a mission exemption. The military service exemption would likely be such a small number of people that I don't think it's worth making an exemption for, especially for those who might not even leave the states in their enlistment. Maternity is the only one I see as maybe worthwhile, and I would change it to maternity OR paternity to avoid being sued by a male student-athlete who fathers a child, and would reasonably like time away to help care for him or her.

The problem I see with denying medical redshirts is students being tossed out in the cold once injured. I know it happens some now, but I could see it becoming automatic without the exemption.

[Thelakerman]

Your coach could easily pick up a phone and call IUP. Nobody is stopping them…

The four year series with Ashland is in its final season this fall. So make the call..a four year series with three games in Indiana. Sounds fair right?

Seriously??? GV has open dates every year and has offered to any and all takers. AND, they pay travel expenses for any team willing to come to Lubbers. Has IUP done a home and home with Mines, Pueblo, Pitt State, Indianapolis and will start one with West Texas A&M and Charleston this fall. And, by the way, we play Ferris, Saginaw Valley and Davenport every year. You’d finish middle of the pack in the GLIAC. You’re making a fool of yourself.

[TheBigCat2192]

Piggybacking onto this thread and trying to get it back on track from the pointless pissing match above; last week, Yahoo Sports reported that the NCAA is proposing a major change to athletic eligibility rules that are broadly in line with President Trump's executive order, but was being considered before the order was issued. For those who don't feel like following the link and reading, the basic tenets of the proposal:

1. All NCAA student-athletes would have five years of eligibility starting from whichever comes first between his or her HS graduation or 19th birthday
2. No more redshirts (including medical) or hardship waivers with only three potential exemptions being considered:
   1. Religions Missions
   2. Military Service
   3. Maternity Leave

It's not clear what graduation date/age would be used for internationals with different amateur systems (i.e. those who participate in a development academy or play for a 16/18/20U affiliate of a professional team), or whether this would give extra eligibility to current fourth year players that would otherwise be out. It also doesn't change anything about transfer policy.

I think this is a solid proposal for a few reasons:

1. Medical redshirts and hardship waivers were always a mistake in my eyes, as anything granted on a case-by-case basis, especially retroactively, is just asking to get sued if the decisions are different, and we've seen this play out multiple times with cases like Trinidad Chambliss.
2. A blanket five years indirectly solves the JUCO and NAIA eligibility questions.
3. Redshirts are borderline pointless in the open transfer era, and even if the rules rollback to a single transfer, it's still more and more difficult to get guys to stay when they don't play.
4. Five years is more reflective of how long it takes many students to get a degree between factors like transfers, major changes, time demands for student-athletes, and plain bad luck in class selection or pre-reqs.
5. Five years serves as a de facto age limit of 24 (presumably with a bit of wiggle room for student athletes who start a fifth season at 23 and 9-10 months and turn 24, although that's yet to be determined), which would bring intercollegiate athletics back to being primarily for normally aged college students.

The biggest change I would make to this proposal would be to get rid of all the proposed exemptions, or at least cut out the religious and military exemptions. The religious mission exemption is just begging to get sued by someone who's irreligious, adheres to a faith without mission practices, or even someone who feels they were wrongly denied a mission exemption. The military service exemption would likely be such a small number of people that I don't think it's worth making an exemption for, especially for those who might not even leave the states in their enlistment. Maternity is the only one I see as maybe worthwhile, and I would change it to maternity OR paternity to avoid being sued by a male student-athlete who fathers a child, and would reasonably like time away to help care for him or her.

[boatcapt]

The order directs the NCAA to create rules that mandate college athletes can play for "no more than a five-year period" and allows them to transfer schools only once before they graduate without having to sit out a season. The rule changes are scheduled to go into effect Aug. 1. A school that plays an athlete who doesn't meet these new limits could risk losing its federal funding.

Good plan...Lawyers and the courts will tear it apart. It's "unconstitutional" to prevent little Leon from transferring four times in a seven-year college football "career" in search of more NIL money.

[IUPNation]

How is it GVs fault that those schools choose to play in a division they can't afford?

Maybe those schools are really small school that are the basis of D2 and Grand MAC Valley is a D1 MAC school.

Most D2 schools are in small towns and they play in an urban area with media coverage. So yes..just the same.

[Bballfan]

How is it GVs fault that those schools choose to play in a division they can't afford?

It isn't. Just like there are a number of schools in D1 that should be D2, there are a number of D2 schools that should be NAIA. But the pyramid scheme doesn't work unless you are a member of the NCAA, and the higher division you are in the more $$$ you can get for athletics.

[Predatory Primates]

They do not offer the same number of scholarships as every other D2 school. They offer the MAXIMUM allowed scholarships for D2. The majority of schools, especially the private ones, do not offer that same number. They also don't have the "discount" you get when not having to offer a full scholarship for in-state players.

Grand Valley plays by the rules. But they have so many advantages compared to most other D2 schools it is laughable you think it is an even playing field. It is only even in terms of "being within the rules".

How is it GVs fault that those schools choose to play in a division they can't afford?

[IUPNation]

1989 playoff loss was first of 6 straight L’s IIRC but they won’t play us since the 2002 a$$ whipping. They’re too busy trying to dominate a weak conference in the weakest region.

Your coach could easily pick up a phone and call IUP. Nobody is stopping them…

The four year series with Ashland is in its final season this fall. So make the call..a four year series with three games in Indiana. Sounds fair right?

[IUPNation]

You should know that better than most on here DFB

You mean you can’t take what you dish out.