How could the new redshirt rule impact the Gophers’ approach?

DanielHouse

Active member
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
594
Reaction score
248
Points
43
The NCAA has passed a new redshirt rule, allowing players to play up to four games in a season without losing their redshirt status. This change will go into effect for the upcoming season. A rule like this will help teams who have inexperienced rosters. It is particularly advantageous for a team like the Gophers. When looking at Minnesota’s roster, 72% of the team will be sophomores or younger this year. In addition, when factoring in transfers, 77% have been with the program for two years or less. One of the best ways to develop young talent is by giving the players live reps in game action. In the past, this hasn’t been possible without losing redshirts.

Practice can only do so much when you’re trying to evaluate player performance and improve their fundamentals. The coaches can be more strategic about how they develop talent. It also eliminates the need for a player who is injured early in the season to apply for a medical hardship waiver. Instead, they would fall under this new designation.

Not only that, but it limits the need for starters to play through nagging injuries. Other options are now available without losing a redshirt. Last year, there were so many players on the Minnesota roster playing through injuries. Now, they could potentially take a week off or scale back their snaps for a week. As the injuries pile up late in the season, coaches can patch the holes and give young players valuable experience for the future. By the time bowl season rolls around, the small dings start to pile up. This new rule will help team’s stay more competitive down the stretch.

This can also be used as a recruiting tool. Coaches who promise a freshman playing time can reward them with snaps throughout the year. This will serve them well in the future and give the player a taste of areas they must improve before becoming a permanent starter. This type of ruling will force coaches to be more strategic, however, they now can set a path for developing each player.

In addition, if a player is developing beyond expectations as the season progresses, they could play the final three games and the bowl game to give the team a lift. It could add an interesting wrinkle to how teams strategize down the stretch. Coaches could add a wrinkle late in the season for a certain playmaker and catch an opponent off guard. It would give those players a taste of live action and leaves the coaches with the option to cut them off before the redshirt threshold.

In the Gophers' case, perhaps they can take a few snaps away from veteran players on the roster. They don’t have a high volume of them, so limiting snaps throughout the year could help the team stay healthy and more competitive down the stretch. This would only be possible for a small fraction of time, but could be a scenario if Minnesota holds a large lead in a game.

For example, think about how much adversity Minnesota faced in the secondary last year. They had players who could contribute, but P.J. Fleck was trying to preserve redshirts. Cornerback Justus Harris lost his redshirt in the secondary because the team simply had no other options. The offensive line had skilled talent like Blaise Andries, but the redshirt again came into play. If he could have played just a couple games, it would have helped the team and his development. The redshirt situation impacted so many things the Gophers did with the roster last year. Minnesota’s staff mentally planned to create future depth at certain position groups. They didn’t want to jeopardize the future to be more competitive last year.

P.J. Fleck was projecting the future construction of his roster through 2019 and 2020. Future planning was important and will continue to be. However, this new rule provides a little flexibility in terms of being competitive as the season progresses. It could help fill some major holes if the coaches and recruiting staff plan correctly.

If the Gophers want to play true freshman quarterback Zack Annexstad for a few games early in the season, they now could. Perhaps the team would suddenly start having success with him at the helm. The coaches could then determine whether they wanted to move forward with Annexstad leading the team. If not, they could stop a rotation between Tanner Morgan/Annexstad and hand Morgan the keys. In addition, it’s also a perk if Morgan wins the job and is injured late in the season. Annexstad could finish out the games depending upon how many are left. Overall, it provides some flexibility because a coach doesn’t lose a player’s redshirt if he takes just one snap.

A few other areas where this could be beneficial is at tight end and on the defensive line. Those are two areas that have the potential to be thin. The Gophers could explore using defensive tackle Elijah Teague and tight end Brevyn Spann-Ford to get a sense of where they are at as players. If they still need work, they could gain valuable in-game action and redshirt. If they are making a big impact, then you can forget about the redshirt and allow them to keep playing. This gives the coaches a game or two to see how a player responds to live action. This is going to be a way to develop players, evaluate them better and decide whether you want to play them immediately. It also helps the player adjust to the next level, while finding ways to improve outside of doing the same things in practice every day. Coaches could also save as many of these redshirt games as possible and insert those players later in the season to build a foundation heading into the next season. This could be even more advantageous if your team’s postseason hopes are dwindling and you want to further accelerate the roster’s overall experience level.

In addition, at a position with depth like linebacker, the team could play a few young guys in non-conference games to take away snaps from veterans. If the team has a big lead, the upper classmen can rest, while the young players gain valuable experience. However, this is only an option within areas where there is enough depth to handle burning redshirt games.

For example, playing the freshman early within a thin position group could be costly when injuries strike later in the season. The coaches will want to save those four available games when they’re within thin position groups. On the current roster, linebacker is really the only area where this could be the case. Nonetheless, when the coaching staff builds the roster to the level they’d like, the small amount of development early in the season could take the future competitive depth to another level. The key is first building enough depth and upper class experience to ensure you won’t potentially need those young freshmen down the stretch.

Overall, this decision will make an impact on how coaches structure rosters and plan for the future. The flexibility helps teams be more competitive late in the season, especially if injuries strike. It also values the health of players who are fighting through injuries because they know there are no other alternatives.

Finally, teams with inexperienced rosters (ie: Gophers) can give players valuable snaps early in their careers to aid overall depth construction and player development. If the team needs an injection at a certain spot, they can roll the dice by inserting the player and determining whether they want to lose the redshirt.

In the end, it will be interesting to see how different coaching staff’s, including the Gophers, navigate this new rule change to develop talent.
 

If nothing else, it immediately adds up to more depth on a game to game basis.
 


It will affect bowl games a ton

My thinking is that bowl games will still primarily be seen as a reward for the regulars, and a capstone for departing seniors, rather than a chance for developmental PT.

But I imagine there won't be a one size fits all approach to this.
 

If nothing else, in addition to that dastardly scholarship grid we can’t seem to get a handle on it will keep people busy spreadsheeting each player’s participation time. I foresee mass confusion down at the complex.
 


It will affect bowl games a ton

Before one bowl game Jerry was all big talk about our RS WRs and how he wished he could play in that bowl game because they'd be great....... the next year I had no clue who he could have been talking about....
 

IMO, this helps the bigger programs more. One of the things that we can sell is immediate PT to a lot of these guys.

Now, the bigger programs can sell that too - - maybe even more (because they'll have more blowouts.
 

I'd prefer 2 games, but whatever
 

The biggest upside will be the death of the ignorant expression "burned his redshirt".
 



IMO, this helps the bigger programs more. One of the things that we can sell is immediate PT to a lot of these guys.

Now, the bigger programs can sell that too - - maybe even more (because they'll have more blowouts.

Guess I'll take the opposite slant. Bigger programs have quality walk-ons that can fill spots where there's been a lot of injuries. The lesser programs don't have those quality walk-on players. With the new rule, if some position (e.g., our offensive line last year) gets hit with a lot of injuries during the year, they can play the redshirts to fill in those spots.
 

Guess I'll take the opposite slant. Bigger programs have quality walk-ons that can fill spots where there's been a lot of injuries. The lesser programs don't have those quality walk-on players. With the new rule, if some position (e.g., our offensive line last year) gets hit with a lot of injuries during the year, they can play the redshirts to fill in those spots.

Yeah, I mean, it could help us for depth in a given year. I just think it takes away one of our potential bargaining chips during recruiting. So in the long run, I think it helps them more than us.
 

So now, if I'm reading this correctly - you can play in 4 games, and sit the rest of the year - no injury required - and still maintain a year of eligibility?

The more I think about this, the less I like it. 4 years of eligibility is plenty, without making it 4 years and 4 games. If it was up to me, I would keep the old rule that it had to be a medical redshirt. Otherwise, you play in a game, it counts as a year.

And - what does this mean for jumping to the NFL? if a guy plays 4 games in year 1, then full seasons the next two years, can he jump to the pros after his redshirt Sophomore season? this could result in top players bolting earlier for the pros. (which, admittedly, has not been a big problem for the Gophers - but if the recruiting improves, it might be some day).
 

So now, if I'm reading this correctly - you can play in 4 games, and sit the rest of the year - no injury required - and still maintain a year of eligibility?

The more I think about this, the less I like it. 4 years of eligibility is plenty, without making it 4 years and 4 games. If it was up to me, I would keep the old rule that it had to be a medical redshirt. Otherwise, you play in a game, it counts as a year.

And - what does this mean for jumping to the NFL? if a guy plays 4 games in year 1, then full seasons the next two years, can he jump to the pros after his redshirt Sophomore season? this could result in top players bolting earlier for the pros. (which, admittedly, has not been a big problem for the Gophers - but if the recruiting improves, it might be some day).

I think leaving for the NFL always had to do with years removed from HS, never with how many seasons one played in college. You could leave after your sophomore year if you redshirted already. I believe Maxx Williams did this.
 



With every action, there is a reaction. All the teams will go through an adjustment and manipulate the system to their advantages.

We don't really know long term how this will impact a team like Minnesota. In the short term it could have help the Gophers last year with injuries and depth issues. In the scheme of things, I do think there is more upside to this new rule for a team like the Gophers.

If you are a Maxx Williams type of kid, four extra games would not make a difference. We won't be worrying about the possibility of over a dozen underclass men players getting drafted from the Gophers in one year either like Ohio State did. What I worry about are the rest of the players and their development. That is what is going to benefit the Gophers as a team.
 

I think this is a great rule change.

Before the change, what would have happened with the old rule if Morgan (assuming Morgan wins the starting job) got banged up vs. Iowa in a few weeks? Say he just pulled a hammy, but couldn't keep going, but there's little concern it's a season ending injury. Third quarter, down by 7 points. Does Fleck put Annexstad in and lose a year of eligibility or Green who isn't even practicing at that position? Really makes that a tough decision.

No more hoping for medical redshirts, no more Demry Croft playing a few meaningless downs potentially costing him a year's worth of eligibility. I think it's long overdue.

To Bob_Loblaw's comment, I'm not sure if this helps better programs more than mediocre programs, but I think it's a good rule regardless.
 

Yeah, I mean, it could help us for depth in a given year. I just think it takes away one of our potential bargaining chips during recruiting. So in the long run, I think it helps them more than us.

I don't think it changes the argument that the Gophers have more immediate playing time. Helmet schools have depth charts full of years of prized recruits where teams like the Gophers don't.

Even if a player for the Gophers redshirts his freshman season, he has a higher probability of getting on the field the next season than he does at one of the Helmet schools.

Players don't crack the depth chart at Helmet schools as underclassmen unless they are stars. That won't change because of this rule.
 

Further thought - if they're going to do this for football, they'd better do it for all sports to be fair. So, for hoops, let players appear in up to 8 games and still maintain redshirt. (using 25% of total). In sports like basketball with the smaller roster, could actually have more impact if a team got hit hard with injuries.
 

Appearing in and up to four games is nice way to get acclimated to the college game without the grind of playing in 12+ games a a young player. I think this is a great idea, one of the very few that comes from the NCAA.
 


I don't think it changes the argument that the Gophers have more immediate playing time. Helmet schools have depth charts full of years of prized recruits where teams like the Gophers don't.

Even if a player for the Gophers redshirts his freshman season, he has a higher probability of getting on the field the next season than he does at one of the Helmet schools.

Players don't crack the depth chart at Helmet schools as underclassmen unless they are stars. That won't change because of this rule.

The helmet schools will play a large number of blowouts (3-6/year), where the game is absolutely not in doubt.

MN used to be able to offer the recruit "come here and there is a good chance you won't have to RS and you can get immediate playing time". They can no longer offer that.

I would be pretty surprised if the number of snaps taken by the average FR (being redshirted) is significantly higher at Ohio State than the Gophers. They're likely more ready to play right away and they will be on a team playing in significantly more blow outs (hopefully, because ours would be the bad kind).
 

The helmet schools will play a large number of blowouts (3-6/year), where the game is absolutely not in doubt.

MN used to be able to offer the recruit "come here and there is a good chance you won't have to RS and you can get immediate playing time". They can no longer offer that.

I would be pretty surprised if the number of snaps taken by the average FR (being redshirted) is significantly higher at Ohio State than the Gophers. They're likely more ready to play right away and they will be on a team playing in significantly more blow outs (hopefully, because ours would be the bad kind).

But do you really think that players who want playing time really want it in the 4th quarter of a blow out? That they could play meaningful downs for team A or just garbage time for team B, that they'd do team B since it's still playing time? I don't buy it. If playing time is a concern, it isn't hoping to get into a 63-0 blowout. It's trying to make the key play to win a 21-17 game. The Gophers can legitimately offer that. Alabama can't. Obviously there are other reasons to go to one school vs. the other, but if it's strictly playing time the big names will not have an advantage.
 

I'm not sure you want to change your approach too much. You still want to maintain eligibility for ceratain kids down the road.

For example, it sounds like a great idea to get a true freshman QB reps during the non-con. But, say you get the guy snaps in those three games, then your starter strains a hammy and is out for two weeks. Or, the new trend, has a great senior and decides to sit the bowl game.

That's just an example, but it could go for any position. You don't want to back yourself into a corner and be forced to use a year where you don't want/need to.

Before, you could blame it on luck. "Player X got injured, we had to burn the redshirt in that game because we needed that game," etc. Now, if you're losing redshirts in an unplanned manner, it'll largely be due to poor management of that on the front end. It's just one more thing for a mob to go after coaches about.
 

The helmet schools will play a large number of blowouts (3-6/year), where the game is absolutely not in doubt.

MN used to be able to offer the recruit "come here and there is a good chance you won't have to RS and you can get immediate playing time". They can no longer offer that.

I would be pretty surprised if the number of snaps taken by the average FR (being redshirted) is significantly higher at Ohio State than the Gophers. They're likely more ready to play right away and they will be on a team playing in significantly more blow outs (hopefully, because ours would be the bad kind).

I disagree that any recruit would now be more likely to choose to play for Ohio St because they could see action in blowouts. That by itself isn’t going to be a very appealing proposition to most players.

I think this rule will help teams the most that have limited depth. If Andries, Otomewo and others were as good as advertised at the end of last year, it would have paid dividends to have them on the field.
 

Further thoughts:

If you have a really outstanding FR - who is clearly as good or better than older players at the same position, then that player will be (or should be) in the regular lineup - at least in the 2-deeps.

So, the "4-game" players are going to be in the next rung - good, but need work on some aspect of their game, and not ready to be on the regular 2-deeps. So, from my point of view, I would not use up the 4-game allotment in the non-conf games. Your 1st priority is getting the regular players ready for the conference season. At the same time, you can be working in practice to develop and improve the next group of players - to determine which players may be ready to make a meaningful contribution at some point in the season.

Ergo, I would see the "4-game" players used like a practice squad. If a starter or a key backup gets injured, then you plug in one of your "4-game" players to fill that gap. This could be really important late in the year. If a starter gets hurt in week #10, that's where you plug in a "4-game" player - not in a 30-point blowout against Directional State in week #2.

If you use a promising FR in all 3 non-conf games, then they may not be available late in the season or the bowl game when you could really use them.
 

But do you really think that players who want playing time really want it in the 4th quarter of a blow out? That they could play meaningful downs for team A or just garbage time for team B, that they'd do team B since it's still playing time? I don't buy it. If playing time is a concern, it isn't hoping to get into a 63-0 blowout. It's trying to make the key play to win a 21-17 game. The Gophers can legitimately offer that. Alabama can't. Obviously there are other reasons to go to one school vs. the other, but if it's strictly playing time the big names will not have an advantage.

We'll see.

I suspect that the RS freshman will play more snaps for Ohio State next year than MN. I think as a FR, they want a chance to play. You're right, they'd obviously prefer to play in a close game, but I think more than anything they want to play. The Ohio State and Alabama can also have some of those "garbage" minutes by in conference championship games, the national championship, etc. It goes both ways.

It's obviously a sliding scale with recruiting.
* Immediate PT?
* How important is that immediate PT?
* When is that immediate PT?
* After FR season, then what?

The fact is, this rule will allow big programs to sell PT to incoming FR. It might not be the exact kind of PT that we might be able to offer, but it's PT nonetheless.
 

Further thoughts:

If you have a really outstanding FR - who is clearly as good or better than older players at the same position, then that player will be (or should be) in the regular lineup - at least in the 2-deeps.

So, the "4-game" players are going to be in the next rung - good, but need work on some aspect of their game, and not ready to be on the regular 2-deeps. So, from my point of view, I would not use up the 4-game allotment in the non-conf games. Your 1st priority is getting the regular players ready for the conference season. At the same time, you can be working in practice to develop and improve the next group of players - to determine which players may be ready to make a meaningful contribution at some point in the season.

Ergo, I would see the "4-game" players used like a practice squad. If a starter or a key backup gets injured, then you plug in one of your "4-game" players to fill that gap. This could be really important late in the year. If a starter gets hurt in week #10, that's where you plug in a "4-game" player - not in a 30-point blowout against Directional State in week #2.

If you use a promising FR in all 3 non-conf games, then they may not be available late in the season or the bowl game when you could really use them.

I think you hit on the most important aspect for programs like ours. In the past, the true freshman that saw the field at the beginning of the season were likely never slated to redshirt. Where our program was really hurt was later on in lost seasons, having to burn a year of eligibility on guys that weren't quite ready just to have warm bodies on the field.

I would even be in favor of going one step further, and just eliminate the redshirt all-together and make scholarship offers a 5-year deal. I suppose you'd have to come up with another term for that 5th year, though, to avoid confusion. Super-senior?
 

Where does it all stop? 5th year senior, 6th year senior, 10 year senior?
 

won't we see the number of grad transfers explode with the rule change? we'd expect the number of players who are red-shirt eligible to increase greatly, allowing more players to graduate in in 4-years with a year left of eligibility. No?
 

We'll see.

I suspect that the RS freshman will play more snaps for Ohio State next year than MN. I think as a FR, they want a chance to play. You're right, they'd obviously prefer to play in a close game, but I think more than anything they want to play. The Ohio State and Alabama can also have some of those "garbage" minutes by in conference championship games, the national championship, etc. It goes both ways.

It's obviously a sliding scale with recruiting.
* Immediate PT?
* How important is that immediate PT?
* When is that immediate PT?
* After FR season, then what?

The fact is, this rule will allow big programs to sell PT to incoming FR. It might not be the exact kind of PT that we might be able to offer, but it's PT nonetheless.

I’m going to agree to disagree on this topic. If Alabama currently wanted a kid that MN was also recruiting playing in 4 games as a redshirt freshman isn’t going to sway them.

Those schools get kids because of their name not because they can offer 4 games as a redshirt freshman.
 

I’m going to agree to disagree on this topic. If Alabama currently wanted a kid that MN was also recruiting playing in 4 games as a redshirt freshman isn’t going to sway them.

Those schools get kids because of their name not because they can offer 4 games as a redshirt freshman.

It gives us 1 thing less to offer someone, if you you think that will have zero impact. So be it.
 




Top Bottom