jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
I
Yep. Teams out of a bowl game will really benefit from this. There’s no replacement for experience.
Yep. Teams out of a bowl game will really benefit from this. There’s no replacement for experience.
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!
Redshirt rule change passed, players can play in up to 4 games without burning RS
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
But what was the benefit before? You believe coaches were playing freshmen sparingly in a few games then putting them on "IR" while having them secretly practicing? All to save a red shirt year?
I think a few were. Take a guy who you are planning to RS for the year but play him a few series in a pre-season bodybag game or two to get his feet wet. Amazingly the next week or two but before the fourth game of the season he turns an ankle and takes an injury RS even though he has played.
Common no, has it happened almost certain.
All in hopes that the player might be granted a medical redshirt down the line? Still not seeing the benefit here. The coaches were able to play a superstar for 20 snaps in OOC games against terrible teams to "know" he is a superstar and then decided that was all they needed to see for his freshman year?
If a guy makes your 2-deep out of camp or works his way into it, he's going to play. This isn't "franchise mode" of a video game for the coaches. They need to win now and will put their best players on the field to make that happen.
Beyond that, there are circumstances that arise where someone gets hurt late in the season or there's a huge blowout.
Until now, if that injury happened toward the end of the season it was a really tough call on whether to play a guy or keep his redshirt intact. Remember Joel Klatt and Tyler Hansen losing a year of eligibility for playing very little in those situations? Or Pursell being kept out last year despite the Lynott injury and the fact he could have helped those last couple weeks? Or simply that we've had guys who were redshirting sitting in the bleachers on game day instead of preparing to potentially get in the game? It's good for these young men and good for the program that all that crap was flushed out of the system.
Beyond that, there are circumstances that arise where someone gets hurt late in the season or there's a huge blowout.
Until now, if that injury happened toward the end of the season it was a really tough call on whether to play a guy or keep his redshirt intact. Remember Joel Klatt and Tyler Hansen losing a year of eligibility for playing very little in those situations? Or Pursell being kept out last year despite the Lynott injury and the fact he could have helped those last couple weeks? Or simply that we've had guys who were redshirting sitting in the bleachers on game day instead of preparing to potentially get in the game? It's good for these young men and good for the program that all that crap was flushed out of the system.
Agree, it helps the rich get richer....
You guys realize, right, that "the rich get richer" would be the result of any policy the NCAA enacts outside of something that outright penalized programs for being successful?
It's because they will more aggressively pursue any new opportunity, more quickly make any necessary adjustments. It's why they are elite in the first place. They out-compete other programs.
I think the it helps elite programs and the bottom dwellers in different ways. The vast majority of programs will see a negligible impact from this rule change.
One thing that has 'penalized' rich programs was the limiting of scholarships. Going down to 85 vs 105 in the '70's(?) really helped in leveling the field and kept elite programs from stockpiling so many recruits.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
So a team could wait until the end of the year to declare a redshirt as long as the player doesn't get in more than 4 games. Could get really interesting near seasons end when injuries and other personnel losses come into play.
Could also be some drama when player A plays in less than the 4 and declares he's transferring - the first school may try to tag the year as a rs thereby denying the gaining school, and player, that opportunity.
Could also be some drama when player A plays in less than the 4 and declares he's transferring - the first school may try to tag the year as a rs thereby denying the gaining school, and player, that opportunity.
I don't think there's such a thing as "declare a redshirt".
This is simple. If a guy appears in more than 4 games it counts as a year of eligibility. If a guy appears in 4 games or less, it counts as a redshirt year.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
As things stand now a player has to agree to the redshirt year. It may come at request of the player with or without the recommendation (or urging) of the coaches. Nothing is automatic and I don't think this new rule changes that.
I just think that at some point a school is gonna play ****ty with a player requesting a transfer.
The school can be ****ty, but the eligibility is still straightforward.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Agreed, you still have 5 to play 4. But if the losing school were to affect the rs before the kid departs, he wouldn't have it available if needed. It wouldn't be a 4 to play 3, or 3 to play 2, etc., which could limit his options once at the gaining school.
Coaches decide who goes into a game. If the player doesn't play, it qualifies as a redshirt year. It's actually very simple. No one is signing anything. From the time an athlete starts college, he or she has 5 years in which to play 4 seasons. After 5 years, it's over regardless of whether the athlete played a second of game time. After 4 seasons of playing, it's done even if it didn't take 5 years to do it. All this new rule does is say that sitting out a year equals playing in 4 games or less in a football season instead of playing in 0 games.
Yep.
cufan141
Well-Known Member
This was my thought as well. You know damn well that kid that knows he is red shirting for an entire year has a different mindset than a kid that thinks he might get playing time.
I think it will create more competition between the 1s and 2s and the freshmen that would previously be redshirting.
I can hear Brent Musburger saying "Ok folks, and in comes the talented Freshman from ..." followed by, "friends, look at this GORGEOUS lady in the stands."
It’s also a convenient excuse to justify mediocrity.
This rule helps all. Just differently. Most importantly it’s good for the players. At all levels.
I didn't post that as an excuse. I see it as aspirational, something that programs that have the ability to compete at that level (like CU, a program that has won a national championship) should emulate.
JOEinDenver
National Championship or Bust
I think you could see even more non conference patsy games scheduled late in the season like Alabama and a few others do now. You can play your younger kids who have some better experience and get some rest for your starters to make the push into championship games and bowl games. It should be a win win for everyone (players, team and fans).
Yes. I realize you are a realist on overused “the rich get richer” phrase. Others aren’t. Not directed at you.
SIAP, but the transfer rules have been changed, too. While conferences can still make their own rules, which is a limp-dick move, athletes can tell the school they are transferring, rather than beg permission, allowing other coaches to contact them. Medical redshirting no longer is as restrictive, either - from what I read, the timing of the injury is relaxed.
Important thing with that, though, is that I don't believe a conference would have jurisdiction within its rules for anything beyond transfers from once conference member to another.
That's a tough one for me, actually. On one hand, I don't want to see rivals poaching each other and this would be much worse and more likely within a conference. On the other hand, I don't know why a conference would want talent to drain out of the conference if a guy decided to transfer.
The vagaries of that rule are interesting. There are cases where it seems like transferring to a school on the schedule can be harmful, and beg for cheaters to entice a player, but the reward side of that equation doesn't seem all that great. Hell, coaches can transfer, right?
Overall, this feels like an acknowledgement that the current model of college football is somewhat unpopular, unfair, and tyrannical, if not unsustainable.
Agree.
My natural inclination is for players to be treated fairly. If a young man feels that he is not in the best situation for his future and another situation would be better, I don't like restricting his freedom to pursue that other opportunity.
However, within that I am sensitive to the fact that the NCAA only governs the rules by which its members will compete in athletics. And while the NCAA must look out for the welfare of its athletes it must also look out for competitive fairness among its members along with their financial interests. So we can't have a situation, for example, where a coach leaves a program and recruits away its 5 best players to his new team with those players all eligible to immediately play.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
It's been pretty standard practice for coaches to meet with players before a season to discuss a redshirt. I can see this still happening even with the new rule - perhaps to a lesser degree.
If players aren't required to sit 1 year upon transferring, this all may be moot. Unless there are other rules/requirements imposed by a conference. In that instance a player could lose the rs that he could have used as his "sit" year.
I just hope we don't see it used as a punishment for transferring players.