AP: Big Ten coaches find 4-game redshirt rule a mixed blessing

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,716
Reaction score
15,968
Points
113
per the AP:

Gone are the days when the final word on a redshirt designation comes solely from the head football coach.

A new trend has gripped the sport, one in which the athletes are much more inclined to decide whether it's worth cutting short a season to preserve a year of eligibility. The shift stems from the new redshirt rule, passed by the NCAA Division I Council last year, which allows players to participate in any four games in a season and still use a redshirt that year.

While some Big Ten coaches have used the change to their benefit, others have experienced a stunning backlash. Such is the case at Rutgers, where quarterback Art Sitkowski and running back Raheem Blackshear opted out of the 2019 season with the Scarlet Knights logging a 1-3 record and seemingly destined for another last-place finish.

A precedent has been set, and there's no turning back.

"I think the players kind of hold the power now in that, if they decide or choose not to play, there's really nothing a coach can do," Maryland coach Michael Locksley said.

Sitkowski and Blackshear took the redshirt after coach Chris Ash was fired. Interim coach Nunzio Campanile got the news shortly before his first game against Maryland, a 48-7 defeat.

"Am I disappointed by it? Incredibly. Do I understand it? I guess so," Campanile said then. "I guess that's the way the world is now."

http://www.startribune.com/big-ten-...rule-a-mixed-blessing/563795102/?refresh=true

Go Gophers!!
 

The concept of guys electing to take a redshirt year on bad teams is an interesting one. As long as they don't transfer it benefits the team some in the future because it gives them an extra year with that player. The tougher part would be dealing with a player that elects on his own to take a redshirt year and then transfers to another school. That would be a double whammy on the team because you would lose that players skills for the current season and lose them for the future as well.

Might see more of that happening if the NCAA keeps allowing guys to play right away if they can manufacture a bogus reason, as opposed to having to sit out a year.

Fleck seems to be making good use of the rule. He also seems well equipped to deal with the changing landscape of college athletics whereas many of the older coaches might struggle to deal with things changing. As Fleck says in the story "because I said so" doesn't really fly with today's youth.
 

They should just get rid of redshirts and let all athletes participate on any team, any season over a five calendar year window that starts when you enroll (or when you enroll in JUCO). When it’s up you’re done. A hardship waiver extends it a year.

Easy, simple, no excuses.
 

MnplsGopher said:
They should just get rid of redshirts and let all athletes participate on any team, any season over a five calendar year window that starts when you enroll (or when you enroll in JUCO). When it’s up you’re done. A hardship waiver extends it a year.

Easy, simple, no excuses.
Click to expand...

Not arguing, just curious, why 5 and not 4?

I'm not arguing, just curious.

I also think every player should be able to transfer without sitting out if a coach is either fired or move.
I think every player should be allowed to transfer once without sitting out.
 

I've posted this before. While I like this rule being utilized for the right reasons....I think it opens up a huge can of worms. Players on under-performing teams, Rutgers being the obvious exhibition, using this to opt out of a season is a problem. It essentially tanks an entire team. And since this is a new rule, it's only bound to get worse. Down year at a helmet school? No worries.
 


Another aspect - by the player choosing to take a red-shirt year, that player improves their chances of graduating with remaining eligibility and going the grad transfer route. And if players want to really jam on the classroom work, it's possible to become a grad transfer with two years of remaining eligibility.

so that is the other side of the coin. Player goes to Coach and says "I want to red-shirt this year." The Coach things, "OK, I'll have you for four more years." But, that coach might only have the player for two more years, and then another coach will get the benefit of a more mature and experienced player.
 

Sounds kind of like healthy players who sit out bowl games. It is the individual players right, and you cant force them to play, but it is rough on the team.
 

Just go to a 48 game rule. You can play 48 games over 5 years, 6 with a hardship. But 48 and done, not including CFP games.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Just go to a 48 game rule. You can play 48 games over 5 years, 6 with a hardship. But 48 and done, not including CFP games.
Click to expand...

Probably need to up the total to 52 games since pretty much every team plays a 13 game season these days due to the number of bowl games out there.
 



GopherinPhilly said:
Just go to a 48 game rule. You can play 48 games over 5 years, 6 with a hardship. But 48 and done, not including CFP games.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't it be 48 regular season games? So conference championship, bowl and CFP games all don't count.
 

I was pretty shocked when I heard Sitkowski and Blackshear just decided they are sitting out. I guess if I were Nunzio I'd remove them from the roster. Yes, they'd still have to honor the scholarship, but there should be some consequences to their decision. I'd also remove any privileges they get from football (tutors, etc.). Let the next coach decide if he wants to bring them back into the fold.

I understand these two guys are supposed to be pretty good, but if you were the next coach coming in would you even want them? They put themselves above the team, to think that that won't send a message to other players is naive...

Besides, as much of a dumpster fire as Rutgers is, the next coach will be rebuilding for a few years anyway. Those two guys will be gone before they are a winning program...
 

BeerFueledFF said:
Shouldn't it be 48 regular season games? So conference championship, bowl and CFP games all don't count.
Click to expand...

Unless your team travels to Hawaii to play.....those teams are eligible for a 13th game under NCAA rules.
 




Penn State expected to burn through a sixth freshman redshirt this week...future is now for Franklin, going all in. Very young lineup with a lot of freshmen and sophs playing big roles.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Not arguing, just curious, why 5 and not 4?

I'm not arguing, just curious.

I also think every player should be able to transfer without sitting out if a coach is either fired or move.
I think every player should be allowed to transfer once without sitting out.
Click to expand...

It was four seasons back in the old days. When they created redshirts they created the five year clock.

I like five years because it gives an extra year if something happens. True, it means a player could play in five seasons. I don’t see why that would make people upset.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Just go to a 48 game rule. You can play 48 games over 5 years, 6 with a hardship. But 48 and done, not including CFP games.
Click to expand...

This could work for me too, strictly talking regular season games (12per season)! Too much variation for post season - conf champ game, bowl game, possible extra playoff game.

I like it!
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Another aspect - by the player choosing to take a red-shirt year, that player improves their chances of graduating with remaining eligibility and going the grad transfer route. And if players want to really jam on the classroom work, it's possible to become a grad transfer with two years of remaining eligibility.

so that is the other side of the coin. Player goes to Coach and says "I want to red-shirt this year." The Coach things, "OK, I'll have you for four more years." But, that coach might only have the player for two more years, and then another coach will get the benefit of a more mature and experienced player.
Click to expand...

Or, if you're Ben St-Juste, 3 years.
 

The players should do what is best for them, but I also think that applies to everyone, fans as well. As a season ticket older I understand that a season may be derailed by injury or just plain losing, but if this trend becomes more prevalent, and I am not sure why it wouldn't, it could influence whether I commit to a full season. It's not like the U is gonna let me drop my tickets if the first four games don't go well.

Point being is we see rules and proposals and the discussion all focuses on what is good for the players or the coaches. Thing is we aren't shorting for people who want to be players or coaches, but empty seats all over the nation show that we are running low on people who truly make this whole thing go.
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
I was pretty shocked when I heard Sitkowski and Blackshear just decided they are sitting out. I guess if I were Nunzio I'd remove them from the roster. Yes, they'd still have to honor the scholarship, but there should be some consequences to their decision. I'd also remove any privileges they get from football (tutors, etc.). Let the next coach decide if he wants to bring them back into the fold.

I understand these two guys are supposed to be pretty good, but if you were the next coach coming in would you even want them? They put themselves above the team, to think that that won't send a message to other players is naive...

Besides, as much of a dumpster fire as Rutgers is, the next coach will be rebuilding for a few years anyway. Those two guys will be gone before they are a winning program...
Click to expand...

I’m with you, if you bail on the team (and fans) for selfish reasons that’s certainly your right but I don’t see why the player should be retained on the roster or in the program. I have to imagine a high majority of these guys electively sitting out will transfer anyway. Yes, it’s a quaint notion but I’d like to think team, perseverance, dedication are worth something and lessons worth teaching. I wouldn’t enable it. I’d nip it in the bud and keep it as outside the norm. Sitting out the bowls is somewhat different in my mind if they are projected (by actual experts not agents) to be drafted. They’ve paid their dues and I think people understand the often times generational money at stake.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom