I like this rule, hopefully it will pass.
New Red Shirt rules proposed
- Thread starter Scarlet_Scourge
- Start date
Why not? It sucks that if too many players get hurt that schools are forced to burn a redshirt for one or two games. This will make that a non-issue as well as allowing players who got hurt to redshirt as long as they played less than 4 games.
This is a great idea. Play one snap and you lose an entire year. Yeah, that's fair to the student-athlete.
Also if you have a season like we did last year, you could get snaps to freshman to aid in their development.
I had hoped 5 to play five would be passed back in the day, but this is a positive step.
Also if you have a season like we did last year, you could get snaps to freshman to aid in their development.
I had hoped 5 to play five would be passed back in the day, but this is a positive step.
Well, you "use" a red shirt to keep a player out of action... so, you either have to "take off", "burn", or "stop using" their red shirt to put them in a game. I think "burn" is used similar to "wasted", as in you're wasting the year they can use for development/S&C/etc.
I think you use "burn" a time out when a team is forced to use it somewhat involuntarily. Usually you "call" a time out... but if a player can't get off the field in time to avoid a penalty, a team may be forced to "burn" a timeout. Again, it's like "wasted".
Just my $0.02
Very subtle. I wish Joe Buck was as insightful as you.
He can have my insight; I'll take his salary and bank account.
I don't look at that as abuse. Giving kids a sense of the speed of the college game compared to HS would help them prepare for contributing in their redshirt freshman year a lot more than just getting limited snaps at practice and a lot of time in the weight room does.
I love it. Great idea. Still 5 to play 4 but you can play a little in your redshirt year. It makes things interesting too. There would be some strategy with this.
would this lead to:
- P5 schools giving red shirt players time in 2 early season games against G5 schools
- time in 2 games at the end of the season when a team is eliminated or has locked up a bowl (like a 2-8 team playing the true freshman in the last 2 games to give them experience)
I think now it is based on rules within the 1st 4 games of the season.
- P5 schools giving red shirt players time in 2 early season games against G5 schools
- time in 2 games at the end of the season when a team is eliminated or has locked up a bowl (like a 2-8 team playing the true freshman in the last 2 games to give them experience)
I think now it is based on rules within the 1st 4 games of the season.
No thanks. An injury is one thing this is another. Wanna play THAT year - aside from injury - then EARN it out there on the field.
I don't believe that is how it is written.
I think, if you play one snap the clock starts If you get hurt before 4th game, you can get the year back. If you don't get hurt, you burned a year.
This would keep someone like Saban using a STUD freshman with speed for one game early season game and then sitting him for the rest of the year - not burning a year. Or keeping that stud on the sideline until the Iron Bowl - and still having 4yrs left.
Or am I way off?
If that is the case, this chess game has gotten more complicated than managing a salary cap in the pro's. Just make freshmen eligible to play at all their freshmen year. Old school.
I don't think any school in the big ten would want this except OSU. This rule will give teams like OSU and SEC teams basically live tryouts. They will then process the players that don't perform. So while teams like Rutgers and PSU are worried about the 85 number and bringing in classes of 18 -20 because we honor scholarships. The schools that dont will still bring in class of 25 plus and get rid of the ones that don't perform. At one point recently OSU was 10 players over while still accepting commitments of the 85. They had players leave early but still not enough to get under 85. Which means soon the medical reasons for quitting football are about to pop up etc. This will only make it harder for your school to.compete. You don't want this rule. JMO
I don't follow. They are earning it by being put on the field in the first place. If our season is off the rails, like maybe we're 2-7, why is it a bad thing to give our true freshmen a chance to play a few games, get live action, and be a few steps forward in their own development instead of holding them back just so we could get a full year out of them instead of four games?
That is the rule now. It would be no change. I took it as they will allow kids to play injury or not. I don't see why it would benefit any one program over another. That doesn't make any sense. Teams are kind of doing it now anyway. Kid plays first three games a little then gets a season ending "injury" and gets a medical redshirt. Just stop with the bullshit injury and let them play three games.
I don't really like it . Would amend it that if you play in a bowl game or confernce championship glad you automatically lose your redshirt
The proposed rule, as presented here is too liberal. Limit it to the last 2 games of the regular season. Or just forget the whole idea.
It's good to people who want NCAA football to keep trending towards some sort of professional model (pay players, sit out bowl games, etc)
It's bad to people who remember that this is college, and this football stuff isn't supposed to be this ridiculous and business-like
It's bad to people who remember that this is college, and this football stuff isn't supposed to be this ridiculous and business-like
It would only make the stronger teams, stronger. They continually blow teams out so they would be able to sub freshman in and in certain games start some freshman for their crappy opponents. A team like Rutgers would not be able to do this unless against an FCS opponent. It would give a clear advantage to the Alabama's of the world by getting their young players acclimated to college football their freshman year without losing a year of eligibility.
Last edited:
A fair amount of the players on teams like Alabama leave for the NFL draft without fully exhausting their eligibility anyway, so I still think overall it would be a good change.
If it helps the football factories then I'm against it,and I don't claim to know enough about what schools do now to circumvent the current rules.
Who cares about them, I only care how this rule will benefit Rutgers, and it will.
Similar threads
