New proposal: let redshirting players play in bowl games

[Deleted member 807]

If Fournette and McCaffrey didn't abandon their college teammates during college bowl season out of abundant caution for a future NFL payday, would we even be having this discussion?

Getting into distinctions between CFP or CCG versus exhibition bowls seems arbitrary and capricious.

 

[Buffnik]

If Fournette and McCaffrey didn't abandon their college teammates during college bowl season out of abundant caution for a future NFL payday, would we even be having this discussion?

Getting into distinctions between CFP or CCG versus exhibition bowls seems arbitrary and capricious.

Since this came from the coaches association, I believe the reasoning was other than to protect the monetary value of bowl games. It might be the idea attached to it that makes the ADs and university/conference presidents like it, but the coaches simply want someone who sees very limited action (no matter what point of the season he plays) to not lose a year of eligibility. In CU's case, this would have meant another year for Tyler Hansen.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Since this came from the coaches association, I believe the reasoning was other than to protect the monetary value of bowl games. It might be the idea attached to it that makes the ADs and university/conference presidents like it, but the coaches simply want someone who sees very limited action (no matter what point of the season he plays) to not lose a year of eligibility. In CU's case, this would have meant another year for Tyler Hansen.

The redshirt rule today is pretty simple, if you want an extra year of eligibility you don't play. I just don't think it's that difficult for coaches to manage. Where do we draw the line on "limited action" A couple plays? Just bowl games? Any one game during the season? And maybe I've totally forgotten, but Hansen's redshirt wasn't pulled in a bowl game so how would this have gained him another year?

 

[Buffnik]

The redshirt rule today is pretty simple, if you want an extra year of eligibility you don't play. I just don't think it's that difficult for coaches to manage. Where do we draw the line on "limited action" A couple plays? Just bowl games? Any one game during the season? And maybe I've totally forgotten, but Hansen's redshirt wasn't pulled in a bowl game so how would this have gained him another year?

They're wanting to re-draw it at "playing in a max of 4 games". It's kind of a compromise. Many coaches had wanted football scholarships to be for 5 years, no redshirting, and for all of the NCAA reviews of medical waivers to be removed. Simplified as "5 years on the clock - period". That didn't have the support behind it, so they moved to being able to appear in up to 4 games (with no consideration for whether early season games or late season games) without the player losing a year of eligibility.

 

[BuffLuke80]

That's interesting. I'd be in favor of that.

 

[Highlander]

I'm thinking through the effects of 5 years of eligibility no matter how much you play. It feels like that benefits teams with less talent as it gives them another year of getting used to game speed, etc., but it also seems like certain guys benefit from staying away from the playing field and the rigors of weekly games and running with the 1's or 2's during practice and instead focus on putting on good weight.

Not sure I have a strong opinion on the 5 year eligibility beyond the simplicity of it being an advantage.

 

[MtnBuff]

I'm thinking through the effects of 5 years of eligibility no matter how much you play. It feels like that benefits teams with less talent as it gives them another year of getting used to game speed, etc., but it also seems like certain guys benefit from staying away from the playing field and the rigors of weekly games and running with the 1's or 2's during practice and instead focus on putting on good weight.

Not sure I have a strong opinion on the 5 year eligibility beyond the simplicity of it being an advantage.

Your post is the reason why the traditional powers don't want it.

In their minds they are recruiting kids who aren't going to be around 5 years anyways. They would get some advantage since they could get some experience for their lower level recruits but it isn't like the advantage that developing programs would get out of it.

Going to a simple 5 years or even saying that you can play a kid in up to 4 games would be a huge boost to schools that rely more on developing players. It would also benefit players who either develop a lot in a single season or more so those players who get hurt in spring practice or in fall camp but who are healthy enough to play near the end of a season.

 

[WasianCU]

How would going to a 5 year clock affect student athletes on the academic side? I've always thought a redshirt year was a good way to transition kids who may struggle with academics into the new challenges of school without having to spend quite as much time on the athletic side (studying film, etc.).

On the bowl game issue, I'm all for it. I don't really see any downside.

 

[Buffnik]

How would going to a 5 year clock affect student athletes on the academic side? I've always thought a redshirt year was a good way to transition kids who may struggle with academics into the new challenges of school without having to spend quite as much time on the athletic side (studying film, etc.).

On the bowl game issue, I'm all for it. I don't really see any downside.

Most students take more than 4 years to graduate, so the idea was somewhat tied to academic expectations. Scholarships would be for 5 years and APR/progress to graduation would also be tied to a 5-year schedule instead of a 4-year schedule.

 

[onealcd]

5-year clock would give student athletes basically a whole 2.5 extra years to complete their classes/double major if you consider they are on campus taking classes during the summer (and that is pretty much taking the minimum classes during the summer when it is very easy to take a maymester class and then 2 more over the rest of the summer). Obviously you would love for them plan their classes so they only have to take 12 credits each fall and concentrate some easy classes in those semesters as well.

 

[SINKRATZ]

So if you're going to expand eligibility to 5 years, you have to increase the scholarship limit to 100+ don't you? I think that actually helps the traditional powers and the big money programs in a huge way. They can stockpile more talent because they have more room.

 

[Deleted member 807]

So if you're going to expand eligibility to 5 years, you have to increase the scholarship limit to 100+ don't you? I think that actually helps the traditional powers and the big money programs in a huge way. They can stockpile more talent because they have more room.

I tend to agree with you that a decision framework should consider actions that don't disproportionately advantage bigger, richer, more traditionally dominant programs over the little guys.

 

[Buffnik]

So if you're going to expand eligibility to 5 years, you have to increase the scholarship limit to 100+ don't you? I think that actually helps the traditional powers and the big money programs in a huge way. They can stockpile more talent because they have more room.

Why would it increase rosters? It's more likely to allow a decrease since you'd have the full roster able to play. NFL does it with 53. We're at 85 with only 65-70 eligible to participate. This rule would increase the number of guys a coach could play in a given week, so I don't see how that would mean that we'd have to make rosters bigger.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Why would it increase rosters? It's more likely to allow a decrease since you'd have the full roster able to play. NFL does it with 53. We're at 85 with only 65-70 eligible to participate. This rule would increase the number of guys a coach could play in a given week, so I don't see how that would mean that we'd have to make rosters bigger.

The NFL can add players during the season through free agency, trades, or from the practice squad when players get hurt - college teams don't have that luxury.

If you keep the scholarship limit at 85, you're reducing each class size because more kids are taking an extra year on scholarship. I think you're either going to see a push for increasing the total scholarship limit, or you're going to see more kids who are not major contributors pushed out of programs to free up scholarships - both sound bad to me.

 

[somebody]

That's an issue with your coach, not the rule.

That's like saying credit swaps were actually a good idea, if only bankers weren't greedy.

 

[Deleted member 807]

I would not welcome the inevitable confusion amongst broadcast announcers, refs, coaches, and message board geniuses trying to pinpoint the exact moment when the provisional red-shirt becomes a for-realz burning of the red-shirt moment.

 

[Buffnik]

That's like saying credit swaps were actually a good idea, if only bankers weren't greedy.

No. Because to do what is feared, your coach would have to be valuing extra practice/experience over winning. No coach worth employing is going to value player development over winning a bowl game. And if it ever gets to that point, the bowls are dead anyway.

 

[SINKRATZ]

No. Because to do what is feared, your coach would have to be valuing extra practice/experience over winning. No coach worth employing is going to value player development over winning a bowl game. And if it ever gets to that point, the bowls are dead anyway.

Again, sorry Ryan Severson I know you've been with us for 4 years, but we think Pookie gives us a better chance to win the Foster Farms Bowl so we want to give him a look. Sure it's about winning, but I think that just sucks.

 

[Buffnik]

Again, sorry Ryan Severson I know you've been with us for 4 years, but we think Pookie gives us a better chance to win the Foster Farms Bowl so we want to give him a look. Sure it's about winning, but I think that just sucks.

And?

 

[SINKRATZ]

And?

And I think that sucks. It primarily hurts the true student-athletes who aren't going on to play at the next level. I know the notion of "student-athletes" is a joke nowadays, and maybe this is an old-fashioned attitude, but I'd rather see the kids who contributed all season or for their whole career get the reward of playing in a bowl game than make them give up that experience so a redshirt can play.

 

[Buffnik]

And I think that sucks. It primarily hurts the true student-athletes who aren't going on to play at the next level. I know the notion of "student-athletes" is a joke nowadays, and maybe this is an old-fashioned attitude, but I'd rather see the kids who contributed all season or for their whole career get the reward of playing in a bowl game than make them give up that experience so a redshirt can play.

I'd expect MM to get a guy in the bowl game if the score/situation allowed. Agree to disagree on whether to be concerned about guys being sent off with playing time as something valued over guys who will be developed for the actual 2-deep the following season.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I'd expect MM to get a guy in the bowl game if the score/situation allowed. Agree to disagree on whether to be concerned about guys being sent off with playing time as something valued over guys who will be developed for the actual 2-deep the following season.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Mac shouldn't play a RS over someone who has contributed all season in a bowl game if he thinks it will help them win - I hope he always does what he needs to do to win. I'm arguing against that rule so he never has to make that decision in the first place.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Different sports, but in relay events in the Olympics (swimming and track), teams can switch out racers between the preliminary heats and the medal round - something about that always bothered me too.

 

[Medford M.]

Let's put it this way... Say we go 9-3 this year and make another decond tier bowl game... Mac goes up to Irwin, Kough, and Huckins and says "I want to get Polley, Sherman, and Moretti some looks in real game action" (assuming all the O line redshirt, which I dont think happens)

Would you really be opposed to that? I think some here need to realize the "reward" isn't the game, its the free vacation and festivities surrounding the game.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Let's put it this way... Say we go 9-3 this year and make another decond tier bowl game... Mac goes up to Irwin, Kough, and Huckins and says "I want to get Polley, Sherman, and Moretti some looks in real game action" (assuming all the O line redshirt, which I dont think happens)

Would you really be opposed to that? I think some here need to realize the "reward" isn't the game, its the free vacation and festivities surrounding the game.

Disagree. Players want to play.

 

[DBT]

I voted for it at first glance. However I see a big negative. Maybe a couple.

• Teams that don't make a bowl game, especially that perineally dont, will fall even further behind. This idea adds to the advantages that teams playing in bowl games get, like extra practices, for instance
• This would widen the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" in recruiting. Perineal bowl teams can somewhat guarantee a kid a chance to play at least one game "this year"

 

[Buffnik]

I voted for it at first glance. However I see a big negative. Maybe a couple.

• Teams that don't make a bowl game, especially that perineally dont, will fall even further behind. This idea adds to the advantages that teams playing in bowl games get, like extra practices, for instance
• This would widen the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" in recruiting. Perineal bowl teams can somewhat guarantee a kid a chance to play at least one game "this year"

Over half the country plays in a bowl game. I'd put more stock in this argument if it was the 1970s and so few teams went to bowls.

 

[Duff Man]

Let's put it this way... Say we go 9-3 this year and make another decond tier bowl game... Mac goes up to Irwin, Kough, and Huckins and says "I want to get Polley, Sherman, and Moretti some looks in real game action" (assuming all the O line redshirt, which I dont think happens)

Would you really be opposed to that? I think some here need to realize the "reward" isn't the game, its the free vacation and festivities surrounding the game.

That would be collasally stupid, so yes, I would have a problem with it.

 

[Highlander]

Let's put it this way... Say we go 9-3 this year and make another decond tier bowl game... Mac goes up to Irwin, Kough, and Huckins and says "I want to get Polley, Sherman, and Moretti some looks in real game action" (assuming all the O line redshirt, which I dont think happens)

Would you really be opposed to that? I think some here need to realize the "reward" isn't the game, its the free vacation and festivities surrounding the game.

That would be collasally stupid, so yes, I would have a problem with it.

There is middle ground here where you rotate in the redshirt freshman for a few series to give the other OL a blow and get tape you can use in spring practice to improve upon.
The folks that are against RS's playing seem to be taking the approach it is play all game or play none of it. Even a few series is incredibly helpful - even for the starters, I would argue.

 

[DBT]

Over half the country plays in a bowl game. I'd put more stock in this argument if it was the 1970s and so few teams went to bowls.

Look at CU the previous 10 or so years prior to last season. One complaint I heard was that bowl teams get extra practices, putting CU at a disadvantage. I still voted "yes" on the proposal, BTW. Just trying to look at the "negatives."