NCAA: Football players can play in up to four games without losing a season

Gopher07

Captain of Awesome
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,008
Reaction score
15
Points
38
College athletes competing in Division I football can participate in up to four games in a season without using a season of competition, the Division I Council decided this week at its meeting in Indianapolis.

Division I student-athletes have five years to compete in up to four seasons of competition. The new exception allows football players to preserve a season of competition if, for example, injuries or other factors result in them competing in a small number of games.

Council chair Blake James, athletics director at Miami (Florida), said the rule change benefits student-athletes and coaches alike.

“This change promotes not only fairness for college athletes, but also their health and well-being. Redshirt football student-athletes are more likely to remain engaged with the team, and starters will be less likely to feel pressure to play through injuries,” James said. “Coaches will appreciate the additional flexibility and ability to give younger players an opportunity to participate in limited competition.”

The proposal was tabled in April over questions about timing, the number of games and potential application to other sports. To mitigate one concern, the Council adopted noncontroversial legislation to specify that midyear enrollees who participate in postseason football competition that occurs before or during the student-athlete’s first term at a school cannot use the exception.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resource...otball-offer-more-participation-opportunities

Now, not only can young players preserve a redshirt by only playing non-conference cupcakes, but young players can also play their way into the lineup later in the year without burning it, and it might even change the way programs approach bowl games (especially lower-tier/non NY6 games).
 

I like the rule, but think 4 is too many.

I assume that it includes a bowl game; if it does, then I don't have a huge problem with the 4, just a little one....
 

Is this for any reason, or does it still have to be injury-related?

If no 'injury' reason is required, then they have basically extended eligibility to 4 years plus 4 games.

coaches could hold glorified "tryouts" for true FR - let them play up to 4 games for evaluation, then put them on the shelf. if necessary, I'm sure they'll come up with some kind of "injury" justification.

Or if some FR is looking really good on the practice squad, they'll activate them for the last three regular season games and a bowl game, and then claim they were injured the rest of the year.
 

Is this for any reason, or does it still have to be injury-related?

If no 'injury' reason is required, then they have basically extended eligibility to 4 years plus 4 games.

coaches could hold glorified "tryouts" for true FR - let them play up to 4 games for evaluation, then put them on the shelf. if necessary, I'm sure they'll come up with some kind of "injury" justification.

Or if some FR is looking really good on the practice squad, they'll activate them for the last three regular season games and a bowl game, and then claim they were injured the rest of the year.

I don't think coaches will need to claim anything or come up with any justification.
 

Is this for any reason, or does it still have to be injury-related?

If no 'injury' reason is required, then they have basically extended eligibility to 4 years plus 4 games.

coaches could hold glorified "tryouts" for true FR - let them play up to 4 games for evaluation, then put them on the shelf. if necessary, I'm sure they'll come up with some kind of "injury" justification.

Or if some FR is looking really good on the practice squad, they'll activate them for the last three regular season games and a bowl game, and then claim they were injured the rest of the year.

Don't see anything about due to injury. Guys could already usually get a medical RS if they played 1/3 of the year or less ie 4 games. This is a good thing. Now your RS frosh aren't totally inexperienced. Now you can see what guys can do on the field before decided if they're going to have a role that year. Now you don't have to go into late season games with only say 7 healthy OL or 6 healthy DBs because you can't burn a guys RS for 1 game. That fatigue could lead to more injuries for the guys on the field. Plus guys that do RS can now say they got a taste of game action which can only help
 


This has pros and cons, but there's a way to play Annexsted this year without using a redshirt if it comes down to that.
 

Is this for any reason, or does it still have to be injury-related?

If no 'injury' reason is required, then they have basically extended eligibility to 4 years plus 4 games.

coaches could hold glorified "tryouts" for true FR - let them play up to 4 games for evaluation, then put them on the shelf. if necessary, I'm sure they'll come up with some kind of "injury" justification.

Or if some FR is looking really good on the practice squad, they'll activate them for the last three regular season games and a bowl game, and then claim they were injured the rest of the year.

99% sure it is for any reason (keeping in mind I haven't seen the actual written rule). As mentioned above, there is already a medical hardship waiver for injury-related lost seasons.
 

This huge rule change opens up a type of game day strategy coaches have never had to deal with before. Do you play a true freshman early in the year against the seemingly "lesser" talented opponents? Do you save a clearly talented true frosh as your late in the year "ace-in-the-hole" who now has fresh legs? Think if a coach has 2 talented true freshman RBs, does a coach use one of them for 4 games then send the other out for the next 4? Does the coach save some of the freshman for later in the year at a position that may be thin on the depth chart knowing injuries will occur? What if the starting QB plays poorly for a game and the coach thinks, "F it, I gotta win now. Lets play Johnny B Good and see what he can do?"

I think the college game just got a whole lot more interesting today.
 

Interesting. I know that in the past the Gophers didn't want to burn a redshirt due to one game, one series or whatever due to an injury situation. Gives the coaches much flexibility. However I would have to agree that I believe 4 games is too liberal. Perhaps 3 at the most.
 



This huge rule change opens up a type of game day strategy coaches have never had to deal with before. Do you play a true freshman early in the year against the seemingly "lesser" talented opponents? Do you save a clearly talented true frosh as your late in the year "ace-in-the-hole" who now has fresh legs? Think if a coach has 2 talented true freshman RBs, does a coach use one of them for 4 games then send the other out for the next 4? Does the coach save some of the freshman for later in the year at a position that may be thin on the depth chart knowing injuries will occur? What if the starting QB plays poorly for a game and the coach thinks, "F it, I gotta win now. Lets play Johnny B Good and see what he can do?"

I think the college game just got a whole lot more interesting today.

On the surface, I think most coaches would look at the early part of the season more so than saving them for a stretch run that consists of conference foes, often times big games & rivalries. However, one thing the SEC has going for it is their often times weak non-conference guarantee game at home the week before the end of the season. Suddenly, Alabama & Auburn have a game right before the Iron Bowl where they can make sure if a kid is ready.

I particularly like it for bowl games; I think it makes watching mid-tier bowl games more interesting in terms of the Gophers. Overall, I like the rule, but wish there were a few stipulations to it. Perhaps make a max on how many conference games one can participate in without it costing a player a year. In my opinion, if a kid plays 4 conference games, he shouldn't be a freshman the next year....
 

This huge rule change opens up a type of game day strategy coaches have never had to deal with before. Do you play a true freshman early in the year against the seemingly "lesser" talented opponents? Do you save a clearly talented true frosh as your late in the year "ace-in-the-hole" who now has fresh legs? Think if a coach has 2 talented true freshman RBs, does a coach use one of them for 4 games then send the other out for the next 4? Does the coach save some of the freshman for later in the year at a position that may be thin on the depth chart knowing injuries will occur? What if the starting QB plays poorly for a game and the coach thinks, "F it, I gotta win now. Lets play Johnny B Good and see what he can do?"

I think the college game just got a whole lot more interesting today.

My assumption would be that you try to use your whole roster for earlier season games, specifically home games where you have everyone available. I'd pick 2 games, say Miami of O and NM State this year and see what these guys can do. At least the guys that you think can contribute this year.

Then you've saved these guys for 2 games which means you can have them available for injury replacements if a position gets hit hard.

Also, you may have guys that are no where near ready to play early on but later are at least serviceable and you can work them in at the end of the year.

The last benefit is that now you can use the Bowl game (if you get one) to play true frosh as well.
 





Well one thing is for sure, you better make sure you get nearly all of these kids in for four games. Not all in crunch time or anything, but in blow outs, or for a few plays in small roles at least.
 




Top Bottom