ACC Lobbies for 5 years of eligibility

The ACC lobbies for a 5th year of eligibility. This is a VERY interesting idea that would have some far-reaching impacts with things like school and individual records. We are talking about players playing 5 years, not 5 to play 4. There would be no red-shirting. Since the scholarship limits would not be increased it wouldn't cost the schools any more money.

However, it should have an interesting effect on high school kids. In effect a whole class of kids will all-of-the-sudden get to play another year, killing a whole round of 'ships that could have been taken by high school kids. If a team is allowed 80 'ships, under the current system, if every kid stayed 4 years, you would need to replace 20/year on average. Under the new proposed system, if all the kids stayed 5 years, there would only be 16/year to replace. So the opportunities for high school kids would actually go down. There would be fewer 'ships to go 'round.

Now the issue for colleges is graduation rates. Schools like GT were embarrased due to misquoted grad rates when the system to measure them is flawed. Is this a real effort to help kids get an education or an effort to make grad rates APPEAR better and actually strengthen certain programs?

What would the impact be in terms of football team quality? Well, if you are Miami, my guess is that the impact would be lower than say Georgia Tech. At Miami, who had 6 first round draft picks, those top players are not going to hang around 5 years. So the Miami's of the world will have to replace those guys with younger ones.

But what about the Georgia Tech's and NC ST's of the world? Would the overall strength and depth of our team increase faster than the best programs? It might if we have more players play the entire 5 years. Of course that assumes that experience is a big part of the equation to go with talent. Can GT having an experienced team close the gap with a Miami that has 1st round picks to replace the 1st round picks?

Ok, am I rambling?