A rule change so smart that even college football coaches agree on it? -Strib

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,349
Reaction score
2,242
Points
113
In the ultracompetitive world of college football, it’s tough to get coaches to agree on anything. Rivalries, recruiting battles and differing agendas get in the way, blocking consensus.

But there they were in Chicago’s Downtown Marriott Magnificent Mile in late July, the 14 Big Ten coaches walking in lock-step over a new NCAA rule.

Beginning this season, Division I players are allowed to play up to four games without burning a year of eligibility. Under the old system, playing even one game, in most cases, would have cost the player a year.

“I’m fired up about that rule. There’s a lot of coaches in the country excited about it,” Northwestern’s Pat Fitzgerald said.

“If you can find someone who doesn’t think that’s a good rule, I’d love to speak to that person,” Maryland’s DJ Durkin concurred.

“It’s one of the best rules to ever be invented and brought to the NCAA, and we’re going to use it,” the Gophers’ P.J. Fleck gushed.

The coaches are giddy for a few reasons. First, it gives them roster flexibility. Say your left tackle turns an ankle and will miss a couple of weeks, you now can plug in a promising freshman to fill in briefly without burning a precious season. And it doesn’t matter when.

Coaches can mix and match which games they use a player — early, late, in a bowl game, consecutive or intermittent — as long as he doesn’t play more than four games...


http://www.startribune.com/a-rule-c...llege-football-coaches-agree-on-it/490077861/
 

This couldn't have come at a better time for the Gophers into their second year under PJ Fleck.

Think of the value it brings to red shirted talent being able to gain experience in up to four games. It certainly will help in their development and teaching moments having tasted game experience.
 

I was trying to think of the only way this can backfire and it is if you have a guy who could probably start / contribute, but you limit him to four games as a freshman, then as a red-shirt freshman, he gets injured in the first game and he's out for the year, there is no remaining option to redshirt since you already used it.
Of course, your only other option there would have been to play him more as a pure freshman, and you cost him games by not playing him more often his freshman year.

So essentially what it tells you, if the kid is good enough, no need to redshirt anyone anymore. Just play them.

My thought is Daniel Faalele is not going to be red-shirted since he likely won't be here for 5 year regardless, so play him as soon as he's ready.
 

That would be a gamble perhaps with guys like Daniel Faalele. However if he isn't ready due to foot work, making mistakes etc., then he'll be glad that he was around for the 5 years to be that much better for the NFL. If he is good enough to play this year, by all means turn the guy loose, but only if he can sincerely beat the other guys out.
 

Do they have to be the first 4 games of the year? or can they be spread out?
 



I was trying to think of the only way this can backfire and it is if you have a guy who could probably start / contribute, but you limit him to four games as a freshman, then as a red-shirt freshman, he gets injured in the first game and he's out for the year, there is no remaining option to redshirt since you already used it.
Of course, your only other option there would have been to play him more as a pure freshman, and you cost him games by not playing him more often his freshman year.

I think in this situation you'd still be able to apply for a medical hardship waiver, which is different than a redshirt (though it's often referred to as a "medical redshirt").

In the old world, you had a redshirt year (could practice but couldn't log any game time) and a medical hardship waiver (an injury occurs in the first half of the season, and the player had not participated in >30% of games). Theoretically you could have a player on the team for six seasons, participating in five (though in a limited capacity in the injury year).

Now, you have a redshirt year (can log up to four games) and a medical hardship waiver. Theoretically you could have a player on the team for six seasons, participating in all six (though in a limited capacity for two, the redshirt year and the injury year).
 

Yes, there are two different things in play. One is the number of seasons of eligibility remaining, the other is a time window.

The standard, classic model that most college football players go through is: a five year time window to complete four seasons of eligibility.

The new rule means that if a player participates in four or fewer games in the season, he does not have a season of eligibility subtracted from his four total. But the time window starts ticking down as soon as he's at school and practicing (or something technical along those lines). There is nothing you can do to slow down the time window from expiring. You can however apply for a medical hardship. This has the effect, if granted, of extending your window to six years long instead of five years long. It gives you another calendar year to complete a final remaining season of eligibility, if you have it.
 

I thought the medical hardship redshirt was going away with this.
I could be wrong.
 



I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think it should go away. Say you had a fifth year senior, who played only 4 games his true freshman year, then tears a knee in fall camp. Thats’s it, he’s done? Too bad, so sad? No... that’s not fair.
 

Does anyone know if this rule was applied to other NCAA sports? So a player could play roughly a third of a basketball or hockey (or anything else) season and still take a redshirt? Seems fair.
 

Does anyone know if this rule was applied to other NCAA sports? So a player could play roughly a third of a basketball or hockey (or anything else) season and still take a redshirt? Seems fair.

Well just off the top of my head, I know some Gopher volleyball players are listed on the roster as Redshirt ___ , so it must be allowed in some cases.
 

Well just off the top of my head, I know some Gopher volleyball players are listed on the roster as Redshirt ___ , so it must be allowed in some cases.

Yes, there are certainly redshirts in other NCAA sports. I'm more interested in if they changed those to also allow a certain level of participation during a redshirt season. I believe it's always been if you appear in a game, no redshirt for those sports too.

For example, Richard Pitino could get a couple freshmen some action this winter in the non conference, or start to bring them in late to fill injuries (or suspensions) without costing a year of eligibility. Villanova is one program that's gotten a lot out of redshirting basketball players in recent years.
 



Oh now I understand what you meant.

Good question! My guess is the answer is no, for other sports. This seems like a football specific change. It seems to me in other sports, for whatever reason, there is much less of a focus on redshirting freshmen anyhow. Freshmen come right in and make a big impact, all season long in sports like volleyball, basketball, hockey, baseball, softball, soccer, etc.
 

Do you play the freshmen you want to redshirt in 3 games until you are not bowl eligible? Then you would have the full roster available for the bowl game.
 




Top Bottom