• Welcome to The Valparaiso Beacons Fan Zone Forum.
 

AFCA Unanimous that a Player Can Be Red Shirted Even After Playing in 4 Games

Started by VULB#62, January 16, 2018, 04:03:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

VULB#62

Saw this in USAToday.

http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/2018/01/13/college-football-coaches-support-changes-to-redshirt-rule/

Of course coaches would like this -- play a kid up to four real games in a season as a "try out."  Then stockpile him for an additional year. I like  ::)  Berry's violin strings rationale about being forced to burn a kid's red shirt year in the last game of the season for 10 measily plays because they ran out of bodies.

Couple of things.  This would be added expense to scholarship programs (and the cost goes up and up).  But, how about our level (non-scholarship), would that actually be advantageous in terms of player retainment?  Right now, any kid that is slated to be red shirted sits out every single game and might leave in frustration.  OTOH, if he plays in at least 4, maybe that'll give him the incentive to stick around because he got to play amost 4 and 1/2 seasons. 

Any other thoughts on this either plus or minus?


JD24

What I can see happening is playing the potential redshirts in the earlier non league games and then sitting them for all league games. That could cause just as many issues as not playing at all.

valpofb16

To be honest not a huge fan. I understand needing spot minutes from a freshman however potential negative side effects.

1. Limited playing time leads to them believing they should be full time rotation
2. They would still have to pay tuition for a fifth year regardless
3. A freshman who burns a year of eligibility can allow two players in same recruiting class to have different eligibility (i.e. Seewald SO. and Duncan RSFR.)
4. Freshman can use film from limited playing time to try to catapult themselves up a division.

For scholarship programs it could be a big game changer (although I believe would massively increase transfer rate) but at non scholarship could be a bad gig

VULB#62

Quote from: valpofb16 on January 16, 2018, 09:27:25 PM
To be honest not a huge fan. I understand needing spot minutes from a freshman however potential negative side effects.

1. Limited playing time leads to them believing they should be full time rotation
2. They would still have to pay tuition for a fifth year regardless
3. A freshman who burns a year of eligibility can allow two players in same recruiting class to have different eligibility (i.e. Seewald SO. and Duncan RSFR.)
4. Freshman can use film from limited playing time to try to catapult themselves up a division.

For scholarship programs it could be a big game changer (although I believe would massively increase transfer rate) but at non scholarship could be a bad gig

Yes, But he would have played in almost 4 ½ seasons vs just 4 if he was forced to sit the entire first season. It would also expand the team's game experience base a bit. I could also see a coaching decision where a kid comes in as a freshman and over the first few weeks takes a bit longer to get into his role, but by week 5 or 6 really improves to the point where he has moved up to where he could be on the two deep. Today the coaches have to weigh whether to blow the red shirt.  Under the AFCA initiative, they could play him in the last 4 games and the kid still has 4 more seasons to play.

And here's another scenario from where we actually have been in the past. We lose all three QBs over the first several games. The question now is do we burn a freshman QB's redshirt year or keep him seated? Under the new initiative, that freshman can start up to 4 games until the vets get healthy and he still has his 4 years of eligibility.

Interesting conundrum.