Jump to content
Mavric

Coaches Asking For Redshirts to Be Able to Play in Up To Four Games

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

Back in May, Fox Sports’ Stewart Mandel first reported the new rule proposal that, if passed, would allow players to play in up to four games during a season without burning their redshirt years. So coaches could save their four-star signees and break them out just in time for bowl games or FCS games, all while preserving four years of eligibility for those players.

 

“I think that would be pretty intriguing to some of the fan bases,” said AFCA executive director Todd Berry, via Fox Sports. “Which might legitimize some of those bowl games and make them more interesting.”

 

SB Nation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it sounds intriguing on the surface but this is really just a rule change that will show greater benefit to the "haves" like Bama. Considering we're likely to start recruiting better, I suppose I'm for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how I feel about this.

 

And I really wonder how much this is going to change what coaches do.  IMO, I don't see it changing too much.  Coaches want to win, so they are not just going to play some freshmen who are redshirting just to give them game experience when they are not ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Not sure how I feel about this.

 

And I really wonder how much this is going to change what coaches do.  IMO, I don't see it changing too much.  Coaches want to win, so they are not just going to play some freshmen who are redshirting just to give them game experience when they are not ready.

Instantly adds depth to a team though and could bulk up a rotation for part of a season. Especially if they can hold off until late when injuries start to plague teams. It just seems like a nice safety blanket for coaches and also a chance to give some small situational game experience. Even if it is a blowout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with it as long as it's 4 consecutive games.  I don't like the idea of a coach being able to cherry pick games to add depth to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spurs1990 said:

Instantly adds depth to a team though and could bulk up a rotation for part of a season. Especially if they can hold off until late when injuries start to plague teams. It just seems like a nice safety blanket for coaches and also a chance to give some small situational game experience. Even if it is a blowout.

 

If a guy is good enough to play as a TFr, the vast majority of the time he's going to play.  I don't see coaches holding anyone back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

I guess it sounds intriguing on the surface but this is really just a rule change that will show greater benefit to the "haves" like Bama. Considering we're likely to start recruiting better, I suppose I'm for it.

 

I'm not so sure about that.  Right now, if Alabama's starting stud RB goes down, they have gobs of talent behind him to fill in without missing much of a beat.

 

Meanwhile, if a team like Illinois has a stud RB go down, chances are, there would be a big drop off.  Now....assume this happens later in the season and they have a stud RB redshirting.  With this rule change, that doesn't punish the player for coming in those last 4 games and playing...which helps make Illinois more competitive.

 

I honestly don't know how I feel about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you are going to give them 4 1/3 years to play 5, just give everyone 5 to play 5 and do away with the redshirting designation.  That seems like the easiest solution to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under this rule the Alabama QB could have redshirted this year and won a national championship for the team.  Seems a little odd.  But so does burning a redshirt for the last game due to someone else's injury.  Maybe just make everyone eligible longer like the 5 to 5 mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, InOmaha said:

Under this rule the Alabama QB could have redshirted this year and won a national championship for the team.  Seems a little odd.  But so does burning a redshirt for the last game due to someone else's injury.  Maybe just make everyone eligible longer like the 5 to 5 mentioned.

 

Tua was their backup and played in 9 prior games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

Tua was their backup and played in 9 prior games.

 

I guess some other example then.  I never watched any of their games, because I'm not a fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Also, you are going to give them 4 1/3 years to play 5, just give everyone 5 to play 5 and do away with the redshirting designation.  That seems like the easiest solution to me.

I agree 100% with this.  Just give them 5 years of eligibility and do away with the redshirts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I agree 100% with this.  Just give them 5 years of eligibility and do away with the redshirts.

 

Yep, do away with the redshirts and give all players five years.  The great ones won't be around all five years anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I'm not so sure about that.  Right now, if Alabama's starting stud RB goes down, they have gobs of talent behind him to fill in without missing much of a beat.

 

Meanwhile, if a team like Illinois has a stud RB go down, chances are, there would be a big drop off.  Now....assume this happens later in the season and they have a stud RB redshirting.  With this rule change, that doesn't punish the player for coming in those last 4 games and playing...which helps make Illinois more competitive.

 

I honestly don't know how I feel about this.

 

I think you convinced me. The Bamas will always have plenty of talent available, this just gives them even more to draw from but would likely show greater needed benefit to teams with less overall talent. It may allow an Illinois to plug a hole of need with a 3 star guy but like usual just let's the Bamas get even deeper with talent.

 

:bang  Guess I'll have to keep searching for that magic bullet that helps equalize the talent and strip it away from those in the talent rich areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Meanwhile, if a team like Illinois has a stud RB go down, chances are, there would be a big drop off.  Now....assume this happens later in the season and they have a stud RB redshirting.  With this rule change, that doesn't punish the player for coming in those last 4 games and playing...which helps make Illinois more competitive.

 

Interesting possibility, but how often do you actually see a situation where a team has a good starter but awful depth, yet still redshirts a stud? I think in most situations like that, the freshman would go straight to top backup without redshirting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Toe said:

 

Interesting possibility, but how often do you actually see a situation where a team has a good starter but awful depth, yet still redshirts a stud? I think in most situations like that, the freshman would go straight to top backup without redshirting.

It wouldn't quite work since he played in 5 games last season but after Bryant went down and Bradley showed up, I would think the coaches wouldn't have played him in either the Illinois or Penn State game, each of which he only had one carry in and he could've still had his redshirt...but then again with the coaches we had, they probably would've still played him and screwed it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Toe said:

 

Interesting possibility, but how often do you actually see a situation where a team has a good starter but awful depth, yet still redshirts a stud? I think in most situations like that, the freshman would go straight to top backup without redshirting.

 

I think we could point to Nebraska over the last ten years and find issues similar to this.

 

Was it a year ago where we redshirted a bunch of top linemen recruits only to find late in the year, our line was really banged up and we lacked depth?  The staff didn't pull redshirts off the freshmen because it was so late in the year.

 

In 2012, when TMart was clearly injured, would the staff have pulled the redshirt off of Carnes late to try to win games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is an NCAA rule change, I want my additional year of eligibility. 

 

College was fun and I'd appreciate it much more now that I know what being an adult is really like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a very highly rated running back a couple of years ago that could have benefited from this.  It would have saved him from the ineptitude of our coaching staff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's an NCAA rule, then it would have to change for all sports.

 

That would be huge.  It would also reduce the total number of athletes that compete at the NCAA level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say, I'm still not totally sold on this change.

 

I would need to read up more on exactly why the coaches want it.

Edited by BigRedBuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Have to say, I'm still not totally sold on this change.

 

I would need to read up more on exactly why the coaches want it.

 

 

Off the top of my head, currently the coaches have a really tough decision on some kids on whether to burn their shirt or save it for the next season. We've had dozens examples where the redshirt was burned and then the player had no meaningful plays, so it was a waste. Maybe there are kids who really really want to play during their true freshman year. You could put them in for a few games and maybe they'll see they're not tearing it up against college players and realize it's better to wait.

 

If we had this change, they wouldn't have to worry about it. If the kid contributed they'd decide it's fine to burn the shirt. If they didn't do a lot in the 4 games, then they would not burn the shirt. This year we could've given Gebbia a chance in the last 4 games if the coaches thought he'd play better than Lee or O'Brien. Or in 2009 we could've put Taylor Martinez in against Iowa State or Texas without taking a year of eligibility away from him. On the other hand our opponents could do the same thing.

Edited by Moiraine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Off the top of my head, currently the coaches have a really tough decision on some kids on whether to burn their shirt or save it for the next season. We've had dozens examples where the redshirt was burned and then the player had no meaningful plays, so it was a waste. Maybe there are kids who really really want to play during their true freshman year. You could put them in for a few games and maybe they'll see they're not tearing it up against college players and realize it's better to wait.

 

If we had this change, they wouldn't have to worry about it. If the kid contributed they'd decide it's fine to burn the shirt. If they didn't do a lot in the 4 games, then they would not burn the shirt. This year we could've given Gebbia a chance in the last 4 games if the coaches thought he'd play better than Lee or O'Brien. Or in 2009 we could've put Taylor Martinez in against Iowa State or Texas without taking a year of eligibility away from him. On the other hand our opponents could do the same thing.

Imagine the effect it would have had on Jordan Stevenson.  He burned his redshirt only to find out he wasn't ready to compete and it screwed up his confidence.  If we could have given him 4 games to find out where he was without losing a whole year just for meaningless action he may have benefited from it and worked harder to improve instead of just giving up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Off the top of my head, currently the coaches have a really tough decision on some kids on whether to burn their shirt or save it for the next season. We've had dozens examples where the redshirt was burned and then the player had no meaningful plays, so it was a waste. Maybe there are kids who really really want to play during their true freshman year. You could put them in for a few games and maybe they'll see they're not tearing it up against college players and realize it's better to wait.

 

If we had this change, they wouldn't have to worry about it. If the kid contributed they'd decide it's fine to burn the shirt. If they didn't do a lot in the 4 games, then they would not burn the shirt. This year we could've given Gebbia a chance in the last 4 games if the coaches thought he'd play better than Lee or O'Brien. Or in 2009 we could've put Taylor Martinez in against Iowa State or Texas without taking a year of eligibility away from him. On the other hand our opponents could do the same thing.

That doesn't do much to convince me.  So...just to make the coach's jobs easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

That doesn't do much to convince me.  So...just to make the coach's jobs easier.

 

 

This provides the athletes a lot more benefit than the coaches, imo.

 

What do you need to be convinced about? Do you have reasons to be against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the non-medical redshirt is somewhat an archaic designation, and I agree with those stating to just give players a 5th year. I question what MAJOR advantage 4 games provide.

 

Perhaps there's some anecdotal evidence where some players, lets say in the past 10 years, made it to the pros by benefiting from that 5th year of playing when that 5th year wasn't due to a medical redshirt. However, it seems like the vast majority of players going pro are doing so with a designation somewhere between redshirt Sophomore and true Senior. Otherwise, the 4 games, on top of a 4-year playing career, are simply extra playing time for the "career" college player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 for 5 makes more sense. You aren't going to see alot of 5 year starters and if you do that will likely be more of a benefit to G5 schools and bottom tier p5 teams. This would obviously help everyone but I think it would help even the playing field a bit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2018 at 11:40 AM, BigRedBuster said:

That doesn't do much to convince me.  So...just to make the coach's jobs easier.

 

Pretty much.  There really isn't any reason for coaches to NOT want this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, say a player is a four year starter and played in every game, could he return for a fifth year and play in up to four select games? 

 

What if if we had Tommie Frazier available for spot duty in 1996?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem more logical to simply set a number of 'quarters" of eligibility over a 5 year span.   Say:  4 quarters  X 13 games X 4 years = 208 total for the hypothetical four full years of play.  Allow every player 208 quarters of eligible game participation over 5 years.   This would allow the player who has some nagging injuries to use up his missed quarters during the fifth season.   It may be a little bit of record keeping to keep track but that would be the most logical way.   Forget the medical redshirt altogether.  This would enable players with an academic issue to sit out a game or two while getting a grade back up in a class or something as well.   Don't count bowl games at all.  This way, all players get the same number of college game quarters since bowls are sort of like exhibition games.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

It would seem more logical to simply set a number of 'quarters" of eligibility over a 5 year span.   Say:  4 quarters  X 13 games X 4 years = 208 total for the hypothetical four full years of play.

 

 

Not saying it isn't a good theoretical idea. But keeping track of only the redshirts and whether they played <= 4 games or > 4 games is a hell of a lot simpler in practice.

Edited by Moiraine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

It would seem more logical to simply set a number of 'quarters" of eligibility over a 5 year span.   Say:  4 quarters  X 13 games X 4 years = 208 total for the hypothetical four full years of play.  Allow every player 208 quarters of eligible game participation over 5 years.   This would allow the player who has some nagging injuries to use up his missed quarters during the fifth season.   It may be a little bit of record keeping to keep track but that would be the most logical way.   Forget the medical redshirt altogether.  This would enable players with an academic issue to sit out a game or two while getting a grade back up in a class or something as well.   Don't count bowl games at all.  This way, all players get the same number of college game quarters since bowls are sort of like exhibition games.   

How do you account for conference championships, bowl games and playoffs. Seems like a bunch of additional hoops to Jump thru...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Council tabled a proposal that would allow football student-athletes to participate in up to four games per year without using a season of competition. Proponents argue that late-season injuries and other factors often require student-athletes who hadn’t played all season to burn a year of eligibility for a small number of games. Others wonder whether the proposal could be applied to other sports, as well, whether the number of games in the proposal is appropriate, and whether the timing of the four games matters.

 

The Football Oversight and Student-Athlete Experience Committees will review the proposal and provide feedback.

 

NCAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 5:16 AM, Ulty said:

Hypothetically, say a player is a four year starter and played in every game, could he return for a fifth year and play in up to four select games? 

 

What if if we had Tommie Frazier available for spot duty in 1996?

 

I would assume they'll only allow it for freshmen. 

 

I think it would be good in that fewer guys would waste their shirt on a season where they don't end-up doing much. Would have been nice to have had Niles Paul and Quincy Enunwa another season. Also, it would mean a fifth year of school, which means more athletes graduate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a huge rule change.

 

1.  It allows freshmen who have been on track to redshirt to be able to play and add depth at the end of the year, without using a year of eligibility.

2.  It allows coaches to get looks at freshmen early in the season to see if they are ready to play and contribute.  If the player shows he's not ready in their first game or two, the coach can "redshirt" him until the tail end of the season so he can develop.  This use could be significant for QB's who you think may be ready to play right away or if you have a close QB battle.  For example, if Martinez and Gebbia are still neck and neck going into the season, Martinez can see some game action early in the season and be sat out if he struggles or gets injured early in the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also useful for when there's late-year injuries, you've got another option for depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Toe said:

Also useful for when there's late-year injuries, you've got another option for depth.

I'm sure that's what most coaches will use them for, as they will try to stick with their original depth chart for most of the season.  But, if there is a fast-riser as a freshman who is killing it in practice, it's a good option for coaches to use at the end of the season..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

This basically eliminates the "medical redshirt".

Not necessarily.  I would think players could still qualify for a medical redshirt after already taking a traditional redshirt, thus getting another year of eligibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure I like this rule change as it pertains to the game itself.  Sure, it probably is the right thing to do for the players so they don't have a wasted year for some reason like an idiotic coach that plays them for a few games then sits them.  I get that argument.

 

But, college football has always been a sport that at least tries to make the entire year mean something.  With this rule change, a team can be very very different at the beginning of the year than it is at the end of they year just simply based on what players are deemed playable by the coaching staff.  What freshmen have played their 4 games?  What players were saved to the end of the season and then all of a sudden come on the scene?

 

Does the playoff committee take into account that XYZ team lost a couple games early but now that their phenom freshman is playing, now they are a top 4 team?

 

I'm holding out judgement for a couple years to see how this rule change really changes the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

I don’t see a clear answer really or maybe I’m complicating it.

the rule is...

A HS kid cannot play in a bow game... right?

A freshmen can play in any 4 games including bow games... right?

Share this post


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

I don’t see a clear answer really or maybe I’m complicating it.

the rule is...

A HS kid cannot play in a bow game... right?

A freshmen can play in any 4 games including bow games... right?

You are somewhat making things more complicated.

An incoming recruit who is enrolling mid-year can't play in a bowl game.

A true freshman can play in any 4 games, including a bowl game.

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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×