Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Erminio8

Any word on Kemerer getting a 6th year?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

If he misses the NCAA Tournament in 2020 or 2021 he would have a good shot. 

He would need a 6th in order to be in the 2021 Tournament though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Erminio8 said:

He would need a 6th in order to be in the 2021 Tournament though.

Wait, he competed only 2 years. I guess he redshirted and then was injured. I think he is a lock for that 6th year.

I had forgotten he redshirted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question.  What is the logic behind having a limit to how many years one can compete at the NCAA level.  Maybe I want 10 majors and multiple post graduate degrees.  Why should my eligibility be limited?  Scholly $$ is a different story, but overall, why does it matter that limits are enforced.  What good does it serve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, treep2000 said:

Serious question.  What is the logic behind having a limit to how many years one can compete at the NCAA level.  Maybe I want 10 majors and multiple post graduate degrees.  Why should my eligibility be limited?  Scholly $$ is a different story, but overall, why does it matter that limits are enforced.  What good does it serve?

It's an arbitrary rule, in my opinion. But maybe the reason for it is that most college athletes who are on scholarship only have 4 years (5 with redshirt). Allowing an unlimited number of years for those not on scholly would be ripe for abuse. Say I go from HS to the Navy and work as a Navy Seal. After saving up my bucks and with the GI BIll I enroll in college and go out for the wrestling team as a 23 year old "true freshman". My senior year I'll be 26, assuming I don't redshirt. It could be worse than that, even. Say a guy goes off on a 5 year Mormon mission AFTER he gets out of the Navy Seals. He then enrolls in college and wrestles as a 28 year old "true Freshman". You see what I mean. But this is pure speculation.

Edited by TobusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobusRex said:

It's an arbitrary rule, in my opinion. But maybe the reason for it is that most college athletes who are on scholarship only have 4 years (5 with redshirt). Allowing an unlimited number of years for those not on scholly would be ripe for abuse. Say I go from HS to the Navy and work a Navy Seal for 5 years. Then I take the GI Bill money and Army College Fund and enroll at a school somewhere and go out for the wrestling team as a 23 year old "true freshman". My senior year I'll be 26, assuming I don't redshirt. It could be worse than that, even. Say a guy goes off on a 5 year Mormon mission AFTER he gets out of the Navy Seals. He then enrolls in college and wrestles as a 28 year old "true Freshman". You see what I mean. But this is pure speculation.

I'm trying to figure out why (aside from the scholly monies) any of this still matters?  

Even if the scholly maxes at 4 years... if I choose to pay my own way, how is that "abuse"?  Again, I feel that there's this arbitrary rule (I like your naming of it) that is grounded in very little actual logic, other than the fact that the NCAA wants to ensure that people are in for a short time, and then immediately out.  

So long as the scholly monies are appropriated correctly, it ought not matter where the money to pay for college comes from after the scholly period runs out.  My own pocket, military, my rich uncle, etc. etc. etc.  Maybe this rule is more for the stick n' ball sports, where after you're "eligibility" runs out, you're supposed to go "pro" or hang 'em up?  

Other thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 8:24 AM, treep2000 said:

I'm trying to figure out why (aside from the scholly monies) any of this still matters?  

Even if the scholly maxes at 4 years... if I choose to pay my own way, how is that "abuse"?  Again, I feel that there's this arbitrary rule (I like your naming of it) that is grounded in very little actual logic, other than the fact that the NCAA wants to ensure that people are in for a short time, and then immediately out.  

So long as the scholly monies are appropriated correctly, it ought not matter where the money to pay for college comes from after the scholly period runs out.  My own pocket, military, my rich uncle, etc. etc. etc.  Maybe this rule is more for the stick n' ball sports, where after you're "eligibility" runs out, you're supposed to go "pro" or hang 'em up?  

Other thoughts?

While overall, I'm sure very little would use this to the level of the hypothetical originally mentioned, there are some other factors. Lets be honest, everything revolves around Football, maybe Basketball. For simplicity lets say the football roster is an average of 100 players. Year 2019 you have 15 guys who want to stick around and keep playing the game. Maybe even more if the NFLPA decides to use this as a way to "develop" guys. You mix that in with the recruits coming in, lets say 25 recruits. Overtime that is more and more players to pay for equipment, access to trainers, traveling, access to tutors, and not to mention now athletes getting all their meals covered. This doesn't even consider scholarships. There has to be a good amount of people leaving each year.

Edited by gopher_fan_90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 9:24 AM, treep2000 said:

I'm trying to figure out why (aside from the scholly monies) any of this still matters?  

Even if the scholly maxes at 4 years... if I choose to pay my own way, how is that "abuse"?  Again, I feel that there's this arbitrary rule (I like your naming of it) that is grounded in very little actual logic, other than the fact that the NCAA wants to ensure that people are in for a short time, and then immediately out.  

So long as the scholly monies are appropriated correctly, it ought not matter where the money to pay for college comes from after the scholly period runs out.  My own pocket, military, my rich uncle, etc. etc. etc.  Maybe this rule is more for the stick n' ball sports, where after you're "eligibility" runs out, you're supposed to go "pro" or hang 'em up?  

Other thoughts?

So are you saying people should be allowed to compete in college as long as they’re enrolled?  I mean it’s gotta be for competitive reasons.  This would be more relevant to non-revenue sports (because I assume they’d want to go pro in the revenue sports) , but if say there’s a stud volleyball player that wants to stick around for 10 years, then basically that team is guaranteed to be good for that entire time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 College/University is thought of as continued education.  Just like elementary school through High School the point is to get the education necessary to move on to the next grade level.

So, taken with the same context, why couldn't a "kid" stick around High SchooI until 21 years old or so?  That example, on its face, is laughable and shows there is NOTHING arbitrary about High School regulations and the continuation to College is no more arbitrary.  It is set up for the vast majority that follow the time table that has been laid out for a VERY long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

 College/University is thought of as continued education.  Just like elementary school through High School the point is to get the education necessary to move on to the next grade level.

So, taken with the same context, why couldn't a "kid" stick around High SchooI until 21 years old or so?  That example, on its face, is laughable and shows there is NOTHING arbitrary about High School regulations and the continuation to College is no more arbitrary.  It is set up for the vast majority that follow the time table that has been laid out for a VERY long time.

Physiologically, high school students are not the same as collegiate students.  I didn't "bloom" until i was late 16-ish, early 17, and I was wrestling guys that had a 5 o'clock shadow by 1pm.  By the time college age hits, 99.9% of one's overall physical "maturity" (note, i didn't say development) has been attained.  Your analogy is like saying that you can substitute pop with water, and get the same nutritional effect.  Sure.. pop has water in it, but, not the same animal.  

The difference between a 23 year old senior/5th year and a 26 year old is marginal at best.  So long as said 26 year old is a full time student, paying his own way (i.e. clearing the way for scholarship money for the incoming crop), and wants to keep going until he's reached his academic fill, why limit said 26 year old?  I don't see who this actually hurts in this situation, except the guy that has the passion, drive, and desire, to continue in his craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, treep2000 said:

Physiologically, high school students are not the same as collegiate students.  I didn't "bloom" until i was late 16-ish, early 17, and I was wrestling guys that had a 5 o'clock shadow by 1pm.  By the time college age hits, 99.9% of one's overall physical "maturity" (note, i didn't say development) has been attained.  Your analogy is like saying that you can substitute pop with water, and get the same nutritional effect.  Sure.. pop has water in it, but, not the same animal.  

The difference between a 23 year old senior/5th year and a 26 year old is marginal at best.  So long as said 26 year old is a full time student, paying his own way (i.e. clearing the way for scholarship money for the incoming crop), and wants to keep going until he's reached his academic fill, why limit said 26 year old?  I don't see who this actually hurts in this situation, except the guy that has the passion, drive, and desire, to continue in his craft.

If that guy want to keep wrestling then he should train for the senior freestyle circuit in hope to make a world/Olympic team.  You know, like just about every wrestler that came before him.  If somebody is getting an advanced degree (MD, phd, law, etc) they should probably be devoting time to that pursuit rather than wrestling a bunch of 18-21 year olds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, wildcatfan1992 said:

If that guy want to keep wrestling then he should train for the senior freestyle circuit in hope to make a world/Olympic team.  You know, like just about every wrestler that came before him.  If somebody is getting an advanced degree (MD, phd, law, etc) they should probably be devoting time to that pursuit rather than wrestling a bunch of 18-21 year olds.

Nah.

If he is a student, let him wrestle whatever he wants. If he can juggle it then who the crap are you to say what he should be doing?

His mum? President of the U S of A?

Do you sit on the USA Wrestling board?

Nobody.

Let the NCAA make the rules the way they wish to. It is all for your entertainment. Be entertained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a kid gets injured and can be approved for another year or two of college while his University pays for his masters(or advanced degree), why not do it?  Its actually a huge bonus.  I know a kid on a D1 team recently who was approved for a medical redshirt so he will probably get his masters from the school because with his redshirt, he's got 6 years paid(or the majority of it).

Regarding age and success in college.  With the success of 18-20 year olds now, I am not sure there is any advantage physically to a kid 23-24 vs a 21-22 year old.  I just don't see it.

 

And to answer the OP question, I see absolutely no reason why kemerer won't get the medical redshirt.

 

Edited by pennsyrules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×