ChiefSmoke's Avatar
This email was sent to AFCA members from Todd Berry, who has taken over for Grant Teaff. Thought it might be interesting for some of the BGPreps faithful to get a look at this. I am not sure what every item addresses.


2017 AFCA CONVENTION OVERVIEW
Results - Voting on NCAA legislative proposals
1. Proposed IAWP legislation – Large majority in support at all levels

2. Proposed Camp legislation – Large majority in support at all levels

3. 10th Coach Legislation – Large majority in support at lower levels. Unanimous in support at the FBS level.

4. Proposed NCAA Recruiting model – Large majority against at lower levels. Unanimous against at FBS level. All levels support a Mid – December signing date only.

• The coaches support a multiple signing date rationale but believe that the steps should be taken incrementally. We believe that the December date is the least intrusive on the current model and that it should be implemented and studied as to the impact on the prospective student - athletes and their high school teams before moving to another summer signing date. Coaches duly noted that a summer signing date creates issues for the high school coaches and prospective student – athletes as to their participation in their senior year. Coaches were also concerned with the potential lack of more solid academic performance measurements gathered during the fall semester of their senior year and the critical impact that this has on the evaluation of the PSA’s academic abilities. Questions that are unanswered in the summer signing date were also raised. What if a PSA does not qualify? What is the academic threshold to sign a PSA as the large majority would not have met NCAA core components? What if a University denies admission after signing? What if a head coach leaves the institution after the fall season? Will this create even more pressure on the viability of the NLI? Are the PSA’s prepared to make a quality decision this early especially in relation to other students who are not under this burden?
• The coaches are anxious to study an earlier entry point with respect to official visits. The timing on these visits should be the least intrusive to the PSA and the coaches recruiting calendar. The coaches believe that the new camp model should be studied to its impact on recruiting and the PSA before allowing official visits to happen in conjunction with camps. The combined variables would not allow for proper evaluative decisions to be made to the new camp model. The same questions noted in the summer signing day were also raised to the allowance of official visits at this time.

5. The coaches propose a new 5 for 4 model – Large majority support at the lower levels. Unanimous support at the FBS level. The current model is archaic and was during a time of fewer games and more scholarships. The coaches propose that the current 5 year to play 4 remain intact but that in any 1 of those 5 years, a student athlete who played in 4 games or less would be granted a redshirt. The current model is unfair to the student – athlete.
Examples:
• Injuries late in the season to a specific position group. SA who has been redshirted all year is asked to play in the last game of the season because the coach has no one else at that position. SA loses his redshirt for 1 game.
• SA who has played all season and is battling injuries late in the season has to play more to preserve the redshirt of another SA thus exposing himself to a greater risk of injury all to protect another SA’s eligibility.
• SA has not played early in the season and then plays in the 5th game of the season and suffers an injury which limits his availability the rest of the season. SA loses a year of eligibility for a limited number of plays.
• SA appears to be ready to play and yet when he gets his first exposure he is not emotionally prepared to handle the game at this time. SA loses a year of eligibility for a few plays.
• SA has worked hard in the season and is not ready to be a contributer. Late in the game the opportunity arises for the coach to reward his hard work and put him in the game for a few plays as his parents watch from the stands. All data suggests that the more engaged the SA is, the more likely he will be successful both academically and socially.

6. The coaches are unanimously against playing on Friday nights for the protection of High School Football.

7. The coaches are anxious to work with our officials as to a more consistent targeting penalty.

8. Our collegiate coaches are against any model that woud include summer walkthroughs with our student-athletes.

9. Our coaches are engaged in discussion and deliberations to modify the kickoff play to make it a safer play for our student-athletes.


10. The FBS coaches would like to have conversations to expand the number of student-athletes in the pre-season camps. The rationale is to allow for more opportunities for prospective student-athletes along with reducing the repetitions on student-athletes during this critical preparation time.

11. The coaches continue to voice concerns over any adoption of measures to bring technology to the sideline. The thought was that until the NFL, who have significantly more resources can find a working model, that we should stay away until a suitable and affordable model is demonstrated. Our coaches have expressed an interest to communications between the QB and the sideline as this is a proven model.

12. Our coaches are concerned with the length of games at the FBS and FCS levels. We believe that caution should be exercised in changes to game play as our other levels are currently at the game time norm of 2 hours and 45 minutes utilizing the same offensive and defensive systems.

13. Our collegiate coaches would like to participate in discussions relating to the growing support staff size and the need to manage these numbers.