Proposal to allow players to play in any four games and still Redshirt.

FireDaveLee

Grizzled Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
1,788
Reaction score
515
Points
113
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

I like the idea. I've always thought it would be interesting for football to just implement a system where you get 5 years to play 48 games plus any post season/bowl games. That way coaches could put a freshman in right away to gauge his readiness without burning a redshirt. This would essentially do the same thing.
 

I like the idea. I've always thought it would be interesting for football to just implement a system where you get 5 years to play 48 games plus any post season/bowl games. That way coaches could put a freshman in right away to gauge his readiness without burning a redshirt. This would essentially do the same thing.


Something like this would make sense.
 

Let a kid play in a bowl game w/o burning his RS. That makes sense. Go much further and just give them 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I agree with letting kids play in bowls without burning their red shirts. After all, it is about player development. Giving them that extra year really will help kids. Whether or not football teams encourage their less productive players to graduate sooner, or those seeking playing time encouraged to transfer is another matter.

It really does take time for player development for most scholarship football players. This plus the extra year will help them academically.

What is important is of the 16369 draft eligible kids in 2015-2016 playing college football, only 1.5 % of them were drafted into the NFL. That is roughly about 254.

It is incumbent upon the college institutions to take care of the rest of the kids by giving them every opportunity to succeed in the classroom and earn a college degree. So, IMHO giving them that extra year is a good thing.

Interestingly, of the 1,083,308 HS kids only 6.8% (73,660) end up playing college football.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/football
 


Coaches who don't get their teams to bowl games would be singing the blues...if bowl games were included and they didn't get to give a youngster more playing time and still red shirt. However, no fans could complain about a "meaningless bowl game..." Although, it would be a bummer if a kid got a serious injury or blew out a knee playing in that bowl game. It's an interesting concept that probably isn't ready for prime time though.
 

Coaches who don't get their teams to bowl games would be singing the blues...if bowl games were included and they didn't get to give a youngster more playing time and still red shirt. However, no fans could complain about a "meaningless bowl game..." Although, it would be a bummer if a kid got a serious injury or blew out a knee playing in that bowl game. It's an interesting concept that probably isn't ready for prime time though.

Wouldn't a bowl game only be 1/13th of the season though?
 

Probably my bad. I was counting them being able to play in the first four games and still being able to play in a bowl game and still redshirt. That would be 5/13ths. Guess I misunderstood. I read that ACC request and then combined it with a bowl game appearance too. So, that would be 0,38461538 season for the first four games plus a bowl game vs. 0.07692308 season for merely a bowl game appearance during a red shirt season. ; 0)
 

I think it's a good idea. At the very least true freshman who redshirt should be able to play in a bowl game.
 



I'll bet that many players would take advantage of this. No brainer to them.
 

Let a kid play in a bowl game w/o burning his RS. That makes sense. Go much further and just give them 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agree with giving them 5 years. With declining football numbers due to specialization and/or concussions I bet we see 5 years of eligibility sooner rather than later.
 

Is there an issue with the student athlete in this case?

Essentially they are all in college for five years now instead of four if something like this happens, or is that okay? Is every student okay with 5 years of college football?
 

I like the idea. I've always thought it would be interesting for football to just implement a system where you get 5 years to play 48 games plus any post season/bowl games. That way coaches could put a freshman in right away to gauge his readiness without burning a redshirt. This would essentially do the same thing.

You got it right Hophead. I've always felt that a RS should be able to play in a bowl game but this is much better.
 



Let a kid play in a bowl game w/o burning his RS. That makes sense. Go much further and just give them 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would exclude conference championship games and bowl games from counting toward the 4 games. It should be 4 of the 12 regular season games. Seniors are going to get pushed out after the final game if their is no consequence to playing a freshmen in a bowl game.
 

I like the idea. I've always thought it would be interesting for football to just implement a system where you get 5 years to play 48 games plus any post season/bowl games. That way coaches could put a freshman in right away to gauge his readiness without burning a redshirt. This would essentially do the same thing.

This would only help those teams that have great depth and talent. They could play a kid for 9 games the first and second year, then play in 10 games for 3 more years. The superstar upper classman wouldn't need to play in the directional univ. non-conference games. It would give those schools even more selling points to attract the best talent. Come play at Helmet school where you will play every season, compete with all the top talent and play for conference and national titles.
 

I like the idea. I've always thought it would be interesting for football to just implement a system where you get 5 years to play 48 games plus any post season/bowl games. That way coaches could put a freshman in right away to gauge his readiness without burning a redshirt. This would essentially do the same thing.

I support this plan
 




Top Bottom