D3boards.com

This term is new to me this year.  My son pursued football as an  freshman at a D3 school this year.  I understand that the last year for redshirting was 2003.  Greyshirting is similar insofar as it saves a year of eligibility, but differs in that the player does not practice with the team.  In fact, he is separated from the team and certainly not on the active roster.  He goes to the weight room, takes a football class to learn the system better, and keeps in touch with the coaching staff.  They had as many as 150 players show up first day, and after the usual attrition they still have about 20 young men greyshirting in order to comply with the NCAA 100 man roster limit.  Is this an acceptable and common practice?

Acceptable? Apparently. Common? Not sure. I first heard about it in basketball last year.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. Smacks of schools upset about losing redshirting trying to get around it.

By the way, there is no NCAA 100-man roster limit. Anyone with a regular-season roster limit in Division III is either having it imposed by the conference or by the school administration. There is a roster limit in playoff games of 52 players.

I had heard this term used to discribe an athlete who graduates early from high school to attend practice in the spring season.  A football player at Maryland who graduated from a rival high school did this.  He played his senior season and then graduated a semester early to go to spring practice.  The newspaper refered to that as "greyshirting", but I have never heard of this type of practice redman76.  I guess it might be helpful.  I know Bridgewater has a JV team, but the players are still listed on the roster and are considered to have used a year of eligability I believe. 

Here in California, I have seen the term used a number of times, especially with junior/community colleges. It seems to refer to a play who is in school, who works out with the team, but doesn't suit up for games so that he gains a year of experience in the system but doesn't use his eligibilty.

I don't really know how it works, but a number of schools that have established winning programs refer to it.

I also am unsure of how this would be acceptable to 4 year schools, who usually would consider this equivalent of a redshirt.

If the player actually works out with the team, that sounds like redshirting, not greyshirting!

If the player does no more working out than would be the right of any student (up to, and including, 'scrimmages' against team members [sans coaches]), I'm not sure how 'greyshirting' could be legislated against (or even whether it should be).

I hate to ask ... but is it possible some coaches have found a way around the D3 prohibition of  non-medical redshirts?

WT,

I think that is EXACTLY what is happening with 'greyshirting', but the coaches had better make sure they leave no 'fingerprints'.  But if a student (although recruited) does nothing more than what any student has the right to do (weight room, 'pick-up' games, rummaging through his 'buddy's' playbook, even watching film [sans coaches, of course]), what prohibition could (or should) be made?

As Baruch Spinoza wrote some 400 years ago: "All laws which can be violated without doing anyone an injury are laughed at.  Nay, so far are they from doing anything to control the desires and passions of men that, on the contrary, they direct and incite men's thoughts the more toward those very objects....  He who tries to determine everything by law will foment crime rather than lessen it."

Redshirting, per se, probably did need to go, but 5th year players are probably unavoidable (and if you have captains sufficiently 'in tune' with the coaches, even the ban on coaches during the greyshirting year may be all but meaningless).

UWSP basketball made it sound like their greyshirts were essentially taking the role of student managers.

Of course, I've seen student managers used in practice situations at some places, so even that isn't 100% equivalent.

If a school/player/coach wants to red/greyshirt, I doubt there is any rule we would WANT to adopt that can prevent it.

Mr. Ypsi,

Sounds like Spinoza was a libertarian!   ;)

The more rules you make, the more loopholes you create. Greyshirting might be something that the powers that be should just leave alone or it will only get worse. What's next........... Recruit some kids, tell them not to enroll until they are needed in a few years and allow them "accompany" the team on campus. It would be a free pass to almost unlimited eligibility. "No no no, those aren't players, they're building maintenance personnel who like watching the practice sessions."

Did we just get a lengthy Spiniza quote in here?  Now that is quality d3 action.

It might be new for football, but I've seen the so called greyshirting thing for basketball for a long time, especially at the smaller schools.  A couple of guys show up for open tryouts who have promise, but not enough to contribute as freshmen.  The coach invites them to practice occasionally basically as a "scout" team and they work out with the team although usually without the coaching staff.

Really, the whole process is just smart.  When you're a small d3 school, you never know which player(s) will decide to stop playing after sophomore year and leave you in the lurch.  It's only smart for the coach to keep up repore with possible replacements.  It's a whole lot better than just cutting them and its less commitment for the guys than a redshirt would be.  Now that Redshirts are gone, it makes total sense.  In fact, it would be dumb of a coach not to keep close ties with players who might develop into contributors before their time is up.

The same concept has been used by NJCU for at least the past 15 years or so that I have been following the program.  Sometimes a player needs to take a semester off or a season off for academics or in the case of NJCU student teaching and can't make it back in time for practice every day.  They still go to games, they watch practice when possible and keep in shape and play against their team mates in pickup games.

Grayshirting, as I have seen it, is an insidious little device used to keep a player in a system until he is needed.  Normally, a grayshirt has to take a part-time academic load, so not only is he not a player, he's not really a student, either.   It's redshirting by another name, except that the grayshirt has very little leverage with the program.  He's neither fish nor fowl.

I'm not sure what the big deal is.  If a kid is willing to slow his academic progress or continue to pay the school for the priviledge of attending, just so he can play d-III hoops, then I say let them do it.  There would be a different story for division I, but these kids don't have scholarships; there's nothing wrong with it.

Here's the deal with "grayshirting."  It's basically a loophole in the NCAA documentation that says that a player doesn't lose a year of eligibility if he (or she, don't want to be gender, uh, inequitable) does NOT practice (or meet, or go to any team functions) with a team from the date of the first competition.  So, basically, even a kid who is NOT going to be competing in a given year can get a month (not sure of the exact amount of time) or so practice with the team (complete with the other players AND, more importantly, the instruction from the coaches).  They then are "cut" and have to do any other practice through out the year on their own (they can't even meet with the coaches).

So it could be thought of as an extended tryout, with cuts made the day before the first game.  Or, it could be thought of as kids practicing for a month and not losing a year of eligibility.

To my knowledge, at least in the UWSP Bball situation that Pat mentioned, the kids were all full time students, taking full (at least 12 credit, making them a full time student) load.  They, also, were NOT with the team after the first competition, in either a "student manager" capacity, or as a practicing (and not playing, a la redshirting) player.

I believe Coach Bennett specifically said otherwise in the postgame news conference in Salem, that they were around as managers.

Not to keep repeating myself, but I really want someone to tell me why this is such a big deal in D3?  Sure, it gives some kids a "fifth year" if they take that long to finish school, but how many kids will continue to pay tuition while they don't play what will undoubtedly be the last organized ball of their lives?  If some guy joins the Army, tours with the Army All-Star Basketball team for eight years, bulks up to the size of your avergae NBA power forward and then enrolls at a d3 school at 26 with five years of top flight experience, practice, coaching and physical development we write sentimental puff pieces about the "unusually old freshmen making a difference and his 'unique' road to d3 ball."  They still only get on the court/field for four years.  Who the heck cares if they spent extra time practicing?  A prep school year does the same thing.  I'm not trying to be a pain about this, but I just don't understand why some people seem so agrivated by greyshirting.

yea, to me if you can stay in school and get a double major, more minors, a different concentration, or maybe even a masters degree, then I say good for you.  It helps out everyone in the end

Quote from: Hoops Fan on September 20, 2005, 04:25:32 PMWho the heck cares if they spent extra time practicing?

The schools whose tuition is so high that it makes it prohibitive for a student-athlete to do so.

And frankly, why shouldn't they be limited to four years? This isn't Division I.

Why should the freedom of a college and its students to work out that college's definition of a "student" and the rights, privileges and responsibilities of its students without interference from outside parties like the NCAA? Consequently if the college defines a person as a student and provides that all its students may play its version of inter-collegiate football, then who should be able to say otherwise, irrespective of any student's academic or extra-curricular history. If football opponents of that college are sufficiently disapproving, then the opponents can take the college off the football schedule. This approach would give maximum freedom to all persons and other parties.

There has to be a somewhat equal playing field if teams are competing for a championship. It is all well and good that like teams play like teams in a conference, because each conference really should have teams of a similar academic footprint. However, when all is swirled into one basket, you need to have some sense of rules and order about eligibility, etc.

smed: The fewer rules, the better. When in doubt, reduce, simplify, eliminate the rules. Freedom is more important than order.The NCAA doesn't do that, in my judgment. Neither does NESCAC. Undoubtedly there are many others which fail in this regard.

Frank let me say this, I see d3football and the NCAA as kind of like a private golf country club.  Only certain people can join, and there are rules when you do join. 

If the private golf club didnt have any rules, then people would be driving carts all over the course ruining it, you might have slow play, 6 people to a cart, unprofessinal play on the course, overplay, people that dont know how to play destroying the course.  It would ruin it for every one.

Now with certain rules, private country clubs can be amazing.  Some of the best looking golf clubs, nice courses, and a great time had by all.

d3football and the ncaa is kind of like that private country club with out the snobby pricetag.

Teams like I mentioned, the charlestown townies, marlboro shamrocks or any other semi-pro league....there are no rules there anyone can play.  Those teams would even beat 90% of d3 teams......but the competition sucks and no one cares.  Thats why d3football and college football is so great, the tradition of the schools, the student athlete and the RULES that set up good competition.

even the nfl has rules....drug tests, money sharing, salary caps.....all to make for better competition.

I do agree that there should be redshirting but just for that one year and that one year only.  From that first time you put on the pads and practice, you should have 5 years to play 4 seasons of college football.  Or maybe two if your getting a masters degree???

bomber: What can I say ? - I want more freedom, more competition and would be willing to pay the price of the consequent loss of order. I believe that you like it more or less as it is. Probably we will never agree. You may be an authoritarian. I have always been anti-authority. My life experience tells me that much of authority is foolish, self interested, corrupt and sometimes intentionally cruel. Yours may tell you that authority brings necessary order and wisdom out of chaos. Most likely you get along with authority quite well while my relationship with authority is at best uneasy and often adversarial.

yea frank I guess your right, we are just going to agree to dissagree.

I think there are too many idiots out there that cant handle too much freedom.  Some people will cheat and steal and that ruins it for the majority of others.

I for one would loathe to have college sports be like the old UNLV teams, or the old Oklahoma football squad under Switzer.

People, this is getting out of control.  No Division Three athletic team can be like Tark's UNLV or OU football.  D-III athletes do not get paid to play.  The guys in D-I get full scholarships and then, if corrupt, money under the table.  No one is paying off their D-III players, at least not enough to justify extra years at several thosand dollars a pop.  A player gets four years to play and that's it.  There is a rule, a very fair rule.  So what if he spends an extra year getting better first?  Top high school athletes have private coaches, they pay lots of money to go to expensive camps with one-on-one instruction from very successful tutors.  I really find it hard to believe that anyone would have a problem with some kid spending a couple years in the weight room and running pick-up games with the varisty all summer and then trying out for the team.  Isn't that what people do to improve?  When I got cut from the varsity in high school, what did the coach tell me to do?  Work out, hit the weights, show up for pick-up games in the off-season.  He told me to improve.  These guys are not sitting out because they are saving potential starters for next year.  If a guy could impact a season, he would be on the team.  You're talking about saving a year of elligibility for a guy who might be the 12th or 13th guy on the team, someone who might someday crack the top 8.  If a coach wants to do that, be my guest, but he/she should probably take stock of their career and figure out what psychological problems would compel them to focus so thoroughly on winning when they don't even have scholarship players.


That might have been a bit over-the-top, but I haven't ranted in a long time and I need a good pre-season warmup.

Hoops Fan,

That's well and good when it's cheap enough to attend some schools that you can go 5 years. It's cost prohibitive for a lot of D-3 schools to not graduate in four years and some D-3 schools really only offer a four-year program. What's fair, then? Why should some schools have that advantage that others cannot have due to finanical circumstances.

It's not an advantage.  The kid can just get a job and work for a year, then enroll in school and go four.  All this 'greyshirting' is doing is helping him get some classes done and making extra money for the school (most of which will go to academics).  What's the range of tuition costs for d-III?  I would assume in state tuition at the state schools would be the lowest, up to what MIT?  MIT is pushing $45,000 per year, NJCU is $7,000 for NJ residents.  You could go to NJCU for 8.5 years for what it costs to go to MIT for one.  That's a big disparity to say the least.  You know what, if some kid wants to go to NJCU for 8.5 years, get four or five bachelor's degrees, and play basketball for the last four of them, why are we stopping him?  He could work at the 7/11 for 4.5 years, then enroll.  Either way he is free to play pick-up games, hit the weights, whatever.  It's the same thing, but apprently for some people, one is ok and the other is not??  It's not necessarily the thing itself that I'm defending, but the paradox of what is deemed appropriate and what is deemed wrong.

I don't think you're getting the point. As stated below, the loophole says the person IS IN SCHOOL and can practice for a month - then he's not part of the team and he loses no eligibility. That is not right. Many D-3 schools can't operate that way - the kids need to finish in four years.

A lot of schools find it rare that someone enrolls in school after sitting a year or two out. It happens, but it's rare enough to be just a handful a year. Many of them at Wabash aren't athletes either. The vast vast majority show up as freshmen right out of HS and then graduate in four years.

I'm not sure that the rule is created with consideration to the financial condition of the students.  If prohibitive costs were the issue, I'm not sure the state schools would necessarily be better off.  I knew my fair share of wealthy students at my alma mater (Hobart) and similar schools who did five and even six years for various reasons.  I also knew quite a few people who went to schools like Cortland who couldn't fiancially conceive of a fifth year.  There would be some schools in the middle of financial/athletic matrix who would take a hit.  In the east Ithaca comes to mind.  I think, in general, their profile is students who are less affluent and slightly better athletes than, say, Union, RPI, Hobart.  They couldn't afford the fifth year.  Without knowing a lot about the Midwest/West schools, I would assume that there is no reasonable way to justify paying for a fifth year at Mount Union, Linfield, Trinity (TX).  In effect, the balance might be greater if people weren't constrained by this rule.

I am also pretty sure you get 4 years of football within 5 overall years.  I know a few guys who took a year off after the clock started running and still played for 5 years.  There is also (in more extreme cases) the possibility of injury redshirts.  I think schools won't go to the expense of the appeal nearly as often as DI however.

I think getting a double major is a good thing, basically two degrees.  Again, if you have the money go for it, if you don't its your choice.  Some people cant even get into college, they can play semi-pro somewhere.

To me 5 years to play 4 years of football is fair enough.  Again, its college football, so you should be in college going to class.

I think you're missing my point, or else we're making the same one.  The kids can't afford to stay five years.  What I'm saying is that no one will be abusing the "greyshirting" loophole because someone would have to have serious mental deficiencies to pay for an extra year of school just to get an extra year on a d-III squad.  It might be a bigger deal at a D-I school, but they have scholarship restrictions to prevent abuse.  I'm just trying to say, if some kid is so desperate to start for a D-III school that they are willing to pay an extra year's tuition for the priviledge, then I say let them do it... it just won't happen very often, certainly not often enough to make any difference.


Also, if I'm understanding the new rule correctly, all redshirts are gone, including the medical ones.

You're not. Medical redshirt regulations have not changed.

Well, still the point remains the same.  If someone wants to play an extra year so badly that they are willing to pay several thousand dollars to do it, then by all means let them do it.

The rules differ for Division I, II, III and NAIA as well as juco.

Out here in the California community college system, it's an issue of matriculation (when you are first enrolled in any college units).

As long as you have less than six units during the beginning of your college career, you have not been considered to be matriculating as far as any of the aforementioned levels are concerned. 

Now, say my first year I play tennis.  Then, my second year, I take a year off.  For Division I, you have already matriculated and your 'clock' is going.  For D2, D3 and NAIA, you still don't lose a year.  In DI, you do. 

So, for example, players we know might be here 3-4 years, we may greyshirt them, then their second year, redshirt them, and then have them play in years 3 and 4. 

The only problem is that when you are below 12 units, you do not qualify for a full-financial aid package because you are not full-time so it's a catch-22.  Out here, it's not a big issue because it's only $26/unit.  But many people cannot do that.

As far as I know, you cannot be a full-time student anywhere and be considered a greyshirt.  You still have the 10 semester/quarter rule to complete your eligibility of four years (in Canada, you can play 5 years at some schools).



Mike Hootner
Associate Head Men's Basketball Coach
San Diego Mesa College

Now, say my first year I play tennis.  Then, my second year, I take a year off.  For Division I, you have already matriculated and your 'clock' is going.  For D2, D3 and NAIA, you still don't lose a year.  In DI, you do. 

Mike, I think d3 you clock is going to as you have a certain amount of years to play ncaa sports once you take that first class.

I have followed US college sports for years, but I am new to your board (which I like very much). It seems to me that this greyshirting issue is one that truly will attract attention in rare cases. So long as D3 athletes have scholastic and accompanying financial pressures to graduate on schedule, the greyshirt will be a lesser factor.

Here in Ontario, Canada, we have a 5 year eligibility rule. We also have a medical redshirt rule. With no full ride type scholarships available, the dynamics of university education are similar to D3, except that I believe that  our schools typically receive  more government money than most US institutions, making our tuition costs markedly lower than in the US. (I recognize that many D3 schools are private institutions; in Ontario there is no such thing as a truly private university) This year full student cost at a typical Ontario school for 4 year undergrad program, including room and board is around 12-13 USD per year; this figure might vary from province to province, and foreign students pay a good deal more, I believe.

However, even here where a university education is significantly less costly than in the US, there is not a mass rush of 5th year eligible athletes to compete - the 5th years are themselves a mix of students finishing their 4 year degree, students taking additional courses after a 4 year degree or those taking a program such as teachers college. While most basketball rosters may have a 5th year player or two,(at least on the women's side, which I have followed), they are the exception and not the rule; it is simply too important for these athletes to get their educations completed and their further careers advanced to prolong their university career with out compensation.

In Division III you have ten semesters of full-time enrollment to play four years. As long as you stay within Division III, you could take those years in 1995, 1999, 2005 and 2012.

so can i go play golf at curry grad school if I only went to ithaca for 8 semesters?

I believe there's a rule that says if you've received your degree then you only have grad-school eligibility at the school you got that degree from.

This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.  How widespread can greyshirting be in D3?  If I understand correctly, this would really only be an issue when a student is on campus for more than his ten semesters during which he may play four years.

In Division III, where the vast majority of member schools are private schools, the cost of tuition will prevent widespread greyshirting.  I remember approaching my parents with the idea of a fifth year to play my fourth year (after medical redshirting one year), and even though they could have afforded it, and even though I would have been pursuing a graduate degree, they just couldn't agree to the additional expense.

If Won-Loss records are any indication, I don't see much evidence that bargain schools, i.e. state schools, have been successfully exploiting the greyshirt loophole.

For those academic programs that require five years, such as the Architecture program at RPI, the student could elect to begin play his second year, and still play four years.

I just don't see how the magnitude of the threat in Division III could ever exceed a small handful of students in any given year.

It's a non-issue; I'm glad the board has finally swayed my way.  Although, now I'm considering going to Grad School for a semester so I can join he varsity cross country squad.  If I only go fall semester in 2006 and 2007, I can get two seasons out of my two remaining semesters of elligability.

If someone wants to play badly enough to pay the costs of grayshirting, then I say let him (or her I guess).  What's the harm?  Oh that's right, there is none.

Big difference between paying for an extra year of a state school or paying for an extra year at Oberlin. That's an extra benefit the kids at the expensive schools can't have.

Yes it costs a lot more for a kid to do this at a private school.  I know from personal experience that if there is still course work to be done and you maintain a good academic standing you can get Pell Grants (if qualified) and other aid for six years and more.

Plus lets not forget that many of these D-III schools offer work-study scholarships to their players as well.  I wouldn't doubt that a grayshirted player would get the same...

Quote from: knightstalker on October 20, 2005, 04:15:39 PM

Quote from: smedindy on October 20, 2005, 03:10:17 PM
Big difference between paying for an extra year of a state school or paying for an extra year at Oberlin.

Yes it costs a lot more for a kid to do this at a private school. I know from personal experience that if there is still course work to be done and you maintain a good academic standing you can get Pell Grants (if qualified) and other aid for six years and more.

Shades of "Doonesbury" (waaay back when it was funny).  ;D

How can you maintain good academic standing and still have coursework requirements after 6 years?   ???

I dunno, ask Matt Leinart, he's taking ballroom dancing.

It is easy, when you are a music major you have several courses for performance ensembles that only count for half a credit.  Also when you are working two jobs and can only take 12 credits some semesters it takes longer to finish school.  Many of the music and art majors took five or six years to graduate.  I went to NJCU because I figured it would take more than four years and it was a lot cheaper than Moravian.

Also, if you change majors late, you may need far more than the usual 124 (+/-) credits.  And if you change majors several times ...

Quote from: redswarm81 on October 20, 2005, 05:18:06 PM
How can you maintain good academic standing and still have coursework requirements after 6 years?   ???

Quote from: knightstalker on October 20, 2005, 07:22:13 PM
It is easy, when you are a music major you have several courses for performance ensembles that only count for half a credit. Also when you are working two jobs and can only take 12 credits some semesters it takes longer to finish school. Many of the music and art majors took five or six years to graduate. I went to NJCU because I figured it would take more than four years and it was a lot cheaper than Moravian.

Wow, you almost sound serious.  :o If we relate this back to the original forum topic, how many music and art majors at Division III schools are so hyped on athletics that they would be greyshirting while working those two jobs, performing in ensembles, and maintaining that good academic standing?  I still don't see even much potential for abuse,  much less any evidence of an actual problem.

Quote from: Mr. "Zonker" Ypsi on October 20, 2005, 08:08:38 PM
Also, if you change majors late, you may need far more than the usual 124 (+/-) credits. And if you change majors several times ...

Now that's the Doonesbury I'm talking about!  8) As Zonker once counseled Mike, changing majors multiple times, spending semesters abroad, even co-op semesters are all acceptable strategies for delaying graduation.  I wonder if B.D. greyshirted at Walden.

Please, please people, read the previous pages of discussion before you start making the same arguments over and over again.  I know this plea is nothing but futile crap, but it makes me feel better to imagine that someone might actually before posting.  I'm tired of these boards cycling through arguments when no new information presents itself.

redswarm,

I responded to your SPECIFIC question, not to your question in the context of greyshirting.  Over my 31+ years teaching at Eastern Michigan I've known several students who, despite attending full-time and in good standing, required more than 6 years to graduate (though, at EMU at least, the USUAL reason for being on the '10-year-plan' is having to drop out to earn tuition money, or only being able to attend part-time due to working full-time.  6+ year students may (or may NOT) be slackers - much as I enjoy Zonker, let's not cast aspersions on people whose situations we (or, in this case, YOU) don't know!

Quote from: Dr. "Zonker" Ypsi on October 21, 2005, 08:19:02 PM
redswarm,
I responded to your SPECIFIC question, not to your question in the context of greyshirting.

Zonker, are you mad at me?  I'm certainly not mad at you, and it's Hoops who is impatient, not me.  I didn't even accuse you of seeming "almost serious," as I characterized (the ever-lurking) knightstalker.

Sure, I asked a specific question in response to a post on the greyshirting message board.  Doesn't the board itself supply the context?  I thought I was just making explicit the already implicit context--and I inadvertently triggered Hoops' OCD.  (Just kidding, Hoops!   ;) )

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 21, 2005, 08:19:02 PM
Over my 31+ years teaching at Eastern Michigan I've known several students who, despite attending full-time and in good standing, required more than 6 years to graduate (though, at EMU at least, the USUAL reason for being on the '10-year-plan' is having to drop out to earn tuition money, or only being able to attend part-time due to working full-time.
(emphasis added)

Several (how many?  a dozen? a hundred?) students over 31+ years at a public University with a current enrollment of ~24,000?  And the majority of those several students dropped out intermittently.  Kinda reinforces my point, don'tcha think, Doc?  It's just not a likely or even realistic opportunity for abuse at a small private school such as most Division III schools.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 21, 2005, 08:19:02 PM
6+ year students may (or may NOT) be slackers - much as I enjoy Zonker, let's not cast aspersions on people whose situations we (or, in this case, YOU) don't know!

Doc, we both admire Zonker, how could comparing anyone to Zonker be considered casting aspersions?

Lighten up everybody, RedSwarm81 is here!

RS, I know of athletes at NJCU and other schools that took six or more years to graduate.  These were kids who played football, worked full time and maintained 12 to 15 credits per semester, usually they would pick up more credits in the spring semester when they didn't have to deal with practice.  We have one playing on our Basketball team now that played one season of football in 96 at NJCU but then had to drop out because of family concerns.  He came back to school two years ago, he is playing basketball, taking a full course load and working full time at night for UPS loading trucks, goes home gets the kids ready for school and then gets a couple of hours of sleep before going back to the school.

I know kids that took a season off for things like student teaching or missionary work, this is where I think the grey-shirting concept usually comes into play.  These weren't all kids from NJCU, several of them attended St. Peters (non-scholarship D-1AA, Jesuit school, not cheap, not easy).  I don't think private school kids wouldn't do this en mass but some will decide it is worth it and as long as it doesn't violate NCAA or school policy there is nothing wrong with it.

RS, Also at a liberal arts school you get athletes that are art and music majors and they dedicate extensive time to both, I made the choice not to play football even though coachs and players I knew tried to get me to try out.  It takes too long to heal in your thirties.

knightstalker,

I could really identify with your first paragraph in terms of my students (though, not of course the SCHOLARSHIP athletes - most people don't seem to understand that even at a d1 school [esp. at a low-level d1 school], MANY of the varsity athletes are NOT on scholarship).

My memory is feeling fuzzy this evening - isn't that essentially the biography of Horace Jenkins (or was he simply out completely for several years before going to college)?

redswarm,

No confrontation intended.  If you had couched it as 'in terms of greyshirting', I would have answered it differently.  But, regardless of the board it appeared on, you asked a specific question, I gave a specific answer.  Peace?  ;D

Ypsibonney, that is the biography of Abe Williams, very similar though.  Actually a large portion of the students at NJCU and other NJAC schools are in the same boat.

Knight -

Again, though at many private schools it is almost a strict 4-year plan. There is no real room for anything over 4-years and out unless they take an entire year off for some reason and that's pretty rare.

Yeah, you got the OCD.  I just find it really rough sometimes when these boards just cycle through the same issues.  I mean if someone takes the time to read the discussion and has some new point to raise, that's one thing, but when someone brings up the same point that has previously been discussed into the ground, it gets on my nerves a little.  We all took the time to discuss things earlier, but new posters won't take the time to inform themselves of the discussion.  It's just a lack of respect to me.  Well worth some scrolling text in my opinion.

Quote from: Hoops Fan on October 24, 2005, 09:40:25 AM

Yeah, you got the OCD. I just find it really rough sometimes when . . . someone brings up the same point that has previously been discussed into the ground, it gets on my nerves a little. . . . a lack of respect to me.

I scrolled and enjoyed the prior posts, I didn't interpret anything posted lately as disrespectful.  I interpreted it more as the fascinating process of people being determined to convince themselves that an issue exists despite a lack of evidence--kinda like UFOs.   ;D

redswarm,

The issue (whether real or only perceived) is that the cost of MOST private schools largely prohibits redshirting/greyshirting, while the lower cost of state schools allows it.

For years on the board it has been argued that (for example) the WIAC has an unfair advantage due to this cost differential.  I understand this argument, though I only tepidly buy into it.  But it IS certainly true that (unless you have more money than I do, and to use two examples who have been prominent in bball lately) a fifth year at Stevens Point is certainly more affordable than a fifth year at Illinois Wesleyan.  It would therefore follow that 'greyshirting' at UWSP would be a more viable option than at IWU.

I am not certain that it is a SERIOUS problem, but there is the concern.

What exactly was the impetus for getting rid of the redshirt?

i used to wear grey shirts when i played.... back in the day..... im in favor

I've seen it, not so sure it's a good thing.  Saw two situations where new coach comes in and doesn't want to have the same size roster as previous coach, so instead of cutting kids....greyshirt.  Kids who were recruited and turned down other good offers can get burned.  Guess that's why to tell kids over and over, make sure you like the school, because nothing is guaranteed in the athletic world!!!

QuoteGuess that's why to tell kids over and over, make sure you like the school, because nothing is guaranteed in the athletic world!!!

Good advice for anyone who has contact with student athletes during recuriting...

What is a "Grey-Shirt"?
Athletic "Grey-Shirting" is a term used to describe people who are non-participants and enroll part-time to post-pone their 5-year clock.  Grey-shirts are most typically used by people who feel that they are going to require more than 2 years of community college or remedial work to be eligible.  A student-athlete no longer has the opportunity to grey-shirt after they enroll full-time at an institution because then their clock will have started.

Quote from: musupporter on September 07, 2009, 12:48:13 PM
What is a "Grey-Shirt"?
Athletic "Grey-Shirting" is a term used to describe people who are non-participants and enroll part-time to post-pone their 5-year clock.  Grey-shirts are most typically used by people who feel that they are going to require more than 2 years of community college or remedial work to be eligible.  A student-athlete no longer has the opportunity to grey-shirt after they enroll full-time at an institution because then their clock will have started.

You are correct, but Division III has adapted the term grayshirting to one of their own practices, and that's probably more germain here.

In Division III terms, a grayshirt is a player who practices with the team until the date of the first game and then is "cut".  They have no more contact with the team for the remainder of that season. The idea being that they can work out on their own for a year, get bigger and stronger and then tryout for the team the following year, and still have four years of eligibility remaining. It's a legal method of delaying a student's eligibility while they attempt to develop.