FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[sigma one]

The NCAA rules say that a student has to be "full-time" to participate in athletics.  Different schools define "full time" differently, but on the whole this means that a student has to be (or stay) enrolled in the minimum number of courses that the school says constitute full-time student status.  Most students will begin a semester (quarter) enrolled in more that a minimum full-time load.  The school says full-time is a minimum of three courses--for example.  Most students will initially enroll for four or more courses each term so that they can finish in four years.  If a student enrolls as full-time every term, but takes only three courses, it
would be impossible to graduate in four years. 
     Now, in the "final term" the NCAA says that the student can be enrolled for less than a full-time load if by doing so he will complete all his graduation credits in that term.  It's possible, then, for a football player, or any athlete, to enroll in as little as one course during his final term.  He would not being paying full tuition, but would only pay for the course he is taking.  At most schools financial aid, merit or need based) only goes on for eight semesters, but by arranging his graduation requirements so that he has only one course remaining in the final term on campus, the student pays far less, even if financial aid does not apply.
    I've often heard this referred to as the "Mat Leinert Rule."  In his last term at USC, Leinert enrolled in one course--he arranged his schedule so that he would need only one credit hour to graduate.  He took Ballroom Dancing that term, and was eligible to play football because that's all he needed to complete his degree.
    It's possible that a school may have an internal policy that says an athlete must be enrolled full-time in order to compete at all.  I don't know anyplace  that has such a rule, but some schools discourage or advise against this kind of manipulation.  A student could even decide to drop out of school for the entire spring term and return in the fall to play as long as this does not violate the school's own policies.  The hardship waiver does require medical confirmation for the reason the player missed games.
    The rule is not welll known outside academia, but I'll bet every coach and every player is aware of it.
    Relatedly, the NCAA says that a player in football in a ten-game season cannot have APPEARED in more than three games in the season for which he seeks the medical "hardship" waiver (and these three early in the season; I don't recall where the break point is--the first half of the season I think).  If he appears in a fourth (or more) game for even one play, he will not be granted a waiver.  I've never heard of this being successfully appealed.  The medical hardship is administered by the conference on behalf of the NCAA.  Any waiver request is sent to the conference office.  If the player meets the standard, the conference will grant the request.  If not, sorry.
     For Barnes:  appearing in three games (no matter how many quarters or minutes) and not appearing in a fourth regardless of his year in college (freshman, soph, etc) would make his waiver automatic.  Then, he would arrange his schedule so that he would have one or more courses remaining next fall.  He would be eligible to compete. 

[BashDad]

Okay. So.

On one hand, I think it's ridiculous that UMU has no available live video for this or any other game. It's ridiculous, full stop. Just ridiculous.

On the other hand, the autumn wind is a raider y'all :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzEYK_XjyLg&feature=share&list=UUXk-GptHyrZ_IIMibONb6ug

Awesome.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I hadn't previously heard this, but Wooster QB Richard Barnes apparently has another year of eligibility remaining, due to missing most of his sophomore season with an injury.  Based on the article linked below, he is undecided on whether he will graduate in the spring or return next fall.  I am not thrilled with the idea of redshirts (even medical ones) in D-III, on principle.  That being said, having Barnes back for another season would be intriguing.  Frank Colaprete has engineered quite a turnaround this fall, and it seems that offensive system changes often fully take root in their second year.  If he came back, might the Scots be realistic contenders for a conference title, as opposed to being a distant 3rd (or worse) behind the other two W's?

http://www.the-daily-record.com/local%20sports/2013/11/15/barnes-in-the-center-of-scots-success

To answer the original question that was the genesis of the Barnes discussion: he played great this year and his return would be a boon for the Scots...but there is no way they contend for the conference title next year.  Colaprete did a great job and seems to have the program in the right direction...but the roster will be very thin next year (this year's recruiting class had only 13 players, and sophomores are kinda necessary to fill in the two deep and provide a few starters.  I think they'll be better in the long run with Colaprete at the helm, but next year could be tough to show big improvement unless he lands a really big recruiting class to add some roster depth.  I expect that they'll be good again, but not nearly good enough to compete for the conference title.

[nike]

Remembering our playing days, as we surely do, another year of college ball with the prospects of a very good season would certainly be worth considering.  Either way, the young man has had a very respectable college career.
The article posted earlier from the Wooster Daily Record about Barnes was quite in depth and informative.  Barnes admitted how Colaprete challenged him to be a better quarterback, not just an athlete.  And the coach spoke very highly of Barnes's work ethic this past off season.  The football experience goes far beyond wins and losses.  The chance to be a part of something special next year, however, can be quite enticing.  And he will always have his degree from a top notch school.

[formerd3db]

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about this particular situation, or that of any isolated case.  My concern is that if 5th-year athletes become more common, it could start off an "arms race" in which redshirting is necessary to be competitive, as is the case in major college football.

There is no way that will happen in DIII.

Also, excellent analysis/synopsis, sigma one.

[smedindy]

Okay. So.

On one hand, I think it's ridiculous that UMU has no available live video for this or any other game. It's ridiculous, full stop. Just ridiculous.

On the other hand, the autumn wind is a raider y'all :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzEYK_XjyLg&feature=share&list=UUXk-GptHyrZ_IIMibONb6ug

Awesome.

Shhhh...you'll unleash the old timers who claim that a Joe Tait broadcast beats God and everyone...

[Joe Wally]

Go Wabash!  Beat DePauw!

[BashDad]

115-7

[nike]

Time to go watch the Scots whup some Bishops!  And Barnes and Espinosa lead their teams.
Bagpipes coming down the hill and the best hot dogs in the NCAC.
A beautiful day for college football!
Later.

[BashDad]

Matt Hunt is going to explode next year. You heard it here first. He's made three throws and that's enough for me. He's legit.

[BashDad]

Well, hello, Michael Putko.

[Bishopleftiesdad]

20-0 Bishop's 

[Bishopleftiesdad]

Scotts try a fake field goal and come up short.

[Bishopleftiesdad]

Scotts hold OWU to a 3 and out.

[Bishopleftiesdad]

20 - 7 OWU!