Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

New proposal: let redshirting players play in bowl games

Do you want to see redshirts play in bowl games?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
American Football Coaches Association has submitted the proposal to the NCAA.

Part of the motivation is to make bowl games more interesting in the wake of the Fournette & McCaffrey decisions.

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

“One could argue that [playing redshirts] is not what the bowl games are for,” said Berry. “Well, it is now. We lost this idea that every bowl game mattered a long time ago.”

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...-christian-mccaffrey-leonard-fournette-050817

I think I like this idea.
 
Not sure I care. Can anyone tell me why I should? If they don't lose the RS year, meh.
 
Why do we even have bowl games any more? Money. There are so many teams thst just go through the motions that they are not real games anymore. Let the redhirts play. Let the early enrollees play. Let teams bring in juco free agents just for the bowl game.
 
I love the bowls and watch almost all of them each year.

It is true though that outside of the playoff teams almost every bowl team is playing for next year anyways. They do want to win to reward the players and their donors/fans for a good season but the pre-bowl practices are almost always heavily geared towards preparing the team for the next season

Let the RS kids play. It would make the games more fun and the bowls more valuable for the teams.

I am also in the camp that says college players love to play the game. They work hard, put in a lot of hours and sacrifices, and take some significant risk to their long term health just to play. Reward them by giving them the chance to do what they love to do and play the game.

Along these lines I would also be in favor of letting BCS programs have a spring scrimmage against an FCS or even D2 opponent. It would be on the coaches to take steps to make it competitive and safe but every time these guys get to line up against somebody in a different jersey it makes their experience better.
 
At first, I was like "why?" But after thinking it over, I would support this. It would help with teams that have a few injuries going into the bowl game. The post season practices would give the kids some experience with the first team, too.

So, sure. Why not?
 
Shrink the number of bowl games. The prestige is gone and the product is diluted.

Alternative proposal: NCAA and NIT. Have some sort of secondary bracket beyond national championship bracket. Try to make these games at least mildly meaningful.
 
CUFan said:
Shrink the number of bowl games. The prestige is gone and the product is diluted.

Alternative proposal: NCAA and NIT. Have some sort of secondary bracket beyond national championship bracket. Try to make these games at least mildly meaningful.
Click to expand...
Or just expand the CFP
 
as long as they keep it limited to the non-playoff bowl games, I'm 100% on-board.
 
TSchekler said:
Or just expand the CFP
Click to expand...
My plan already assumes that. Since so many teams go to bowls I just assumed they would need two brackets.

I think this could help some, but maybe not enough. The only reason I say that though is I have yet to watch a college football playoff game. I just have no interest if the Buffs aren't in it.
 
Daaah said:
Hate it. Dance with who brung you.
Click to expand...
And if who brung you decided to transfer at the end of the season, became academically ineligible (in the case of a Jan bowl), got hurt during bowl practices, or decided that he didn't want to play in the bowl game?

I can see why coaches like it. It ensures a full travel squad and also can be used to motivate & reward guys who spent the year redshirting. I'm trying to figure out who it hurts. I only see positives. Arguments against have seemed to be limited to "I distrust change and reflexively oppose it".
 
Buffnik said:
And if who brung you decided to transfer at the end of the season, became academically ineligible (in the case of a Jan bowl), got hurt during bowl practices, or decided that he didn't want to play in the bowl game?

I can see why coaches like it. It ensures a full travel squad and also can be used to motivate & reward guys who spent the year redshirting. I'm trying to figure out who it hurts. I only see positives. Arguments against have seemed to be limited to "I distrust change and reflexively oppose it".
Click to expand...
Here's my argument against: for every Fournette or McCaffrey who skips a bowl game to preserve their draft stock, there are half a dozen kids like Ryan Severson who aren't going to the next level and it would be pretty sh**ty for guys like that who are seniors to potentially lose PT in a bowl game so the coaches could get an early look at Pookie Maka.
 
SINKRATZ said:
Here's my argument against: for every Fournette or McCaffrey who skips a bowl game to preserve their draft stock, there are half a dozen kids like Ryan Severson who aren't going to the next level and it would be pretty sh**ty for guys like that who are seniors to potentially lose PT in a bowl game so the coaches could get an early look at Pookie Maka.
Click to expand...
That's an issue with your coach, not the rule.
 
SINKRATZ said:
Not really. If you want the rule, then you want to see the RS kids play and they're going to take snaps from someone who has been contributing all year.
Click to expand...
Not like Tad empties his bench for meaningful minutes during the Pac-12 tourney or the NIT/NCAA tourney to get those walk ons time. I think that if you're worried about this you're worried for nothing.
 
The percentage of kids red-shirting and then be given the opportunity to play in the bowl game would be small, so I am not sure I understand any of the arguments against it.
 
Why does anybody even care about this stuff anymore? College football, P5 football, is a big business that is virtually detached from the schools that they represent. It is a joke when I read how we need a great football program to boost up the academics. Football might as well be detached from the schools, certainly the players need to get paid, be given more leeway to play extra years, whatever it takes to maximize revenue. Tradition is dead, people need to quit acting as if it isn't.
 
Buffnik said:
And if who brung you decided to transfer at the end of the season, became academically ineligible (in the case of a Jan bowl), got hurt during bowl practices, or decided that he didn't want to play in the bowl game?

I can see why coaches like it. It ensures a full travel squad and also can be used to motivate & reward guys who spent the year redshirting. I'm trying to figure out who it hurts. I only see positives. Arguments against have seemed to be limited to "I distrust change and reflexively oppose it".
Click to expand...
If you've got lots of people sitting out, transferring, or becoming ineligible, I'd say you've got a cultural problem within your program. College football should be trying to discourage those things not accommodate them. Allowing redshirts degrades the value of the regular season which is one of the things that separates college football from other sports in my eyes. If you don't play in the regular season, you don't play in the reward at the end of the year. Makes sense to me.
 
Daaah said:
If you've got lots of people sitting out, transferring, or becoming ineligible, I'd say you've got a cultural problem within your program. College football should be trying to discourage those things not accommodate them. Allowing redshirts degrades the value of the regular season which is one of the things that separates college football from other sports in my eyes. If you don't play in the regular season, you don't play in the reward at the end of the year. Makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
And a coach could certainly have that policy. But I don't see any harm in letting a redshirt play in a post-season game. That regular season team sometimes become a different team anyway through post-season attrition. Why is it only ok to lose guys from your regular season roster but it's not ok to fill your depth chart from the existing roster without costing a kid a year of eligibility?
 
Buffnik said:
Not like Tad empties his bench for meaningful minutes during the Pac-12 tourney or the NIT/NCAA tourney to get those walk ons time. I think that if you're worried about this you're worried for nothing.
Click to expand...
Not worried so much (actually I don't really care to be honest), but I think there's a difference between a bowl game and the P12 or NCAA Tournament - those actually matter whereas unless you're in the playoff, bowl games are mostly just a fun reward for a good season - I like to see the kids who have contributed over their careers or at least over that season get that reward, but I understand why people like the idea.
 
Buffnik said:
And a coach could certainly have that policy. But I don't see any harm in letting a redshirt play in a post-season game. That regular season team sometimes become a different team anyway through post-season attrition. Why is it only ok to lose guys from your regular season roster but it's not ok to fill your depth chart from the existing roster without costing a kid a year of eligibility?
Click to expand...
Most schools have 100 kids on the roster or something close to it, I'm not buying the concern over needing to restock players that are lost after the regular season.
 
If we let the RS players play in the bowl game, would there be a need for a spring game?

Just imagine if CU had a RS player go crazy on another P5 team in a bowl game...the hype would be off the charts.
 
I think this is partially due to the concern over the fact that I believe what Fournette and McCaffrey did this year will start becoming a trend for guys who know they're going to the draft.

For the record, it's the right decision to sit out a bowl game unless it's a playoff game.
 
Medford M. said:
For the record, it's the right decision to sit out a bowl game unless it's a playoff game.
Click to expand...
Why? Aren't the risks the same? What NFL team cares if you won the CFP? NONE! Sit out, take your money, who cares if you won the national championship game.

Who benefited more, Deshaun Watson or Christian McCaffery?

Lotsa pulled hamstrings in our future.
 
Last edited:
14er said:
Why? Aren't the risks the same? What NFL team cares if you won the CFP? NONE! Sit out, take your money, who cares if you won the national championship game.

Who benefited more, Deshaun Watson or Christian McCaffery?

Lotsa pulled hamstrings in our future.
Click to expand...
Seriously? The NFL teams aren't going to care if you won a championship, but the players give a **** about winning meaningful games. Were you ever an athlete? I ask because you can't possibly be that dense about how players view the differences between a meaningless bowl game and having a shot at the national championship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top