CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: ELA on January 09, 2018, 08:01:32 PM
-
ACC proposing a change that players could play in ANY 4 games and still get a redshirt. Would be particularly big for how many freshmen could now play in bowl games.
-
ACC proposing a change that players could play in ANY 4 games and still get a redshirt. Would be particularly big for how many freshmen could now play in bowl games.
I like it. A bowl game is a perfect place to play the kiddies after a whole season of practice plus the bowl practices.
Good job ACC. Make it happen, B1G.
-
I am 100% for this.
-
I don't know.
This means any redshirt can play in the last 4 games if they had been sitting out the first 9 games. I guess thats ok, but I am not sure if that is the spirit of what a redshirt is.
-
Yeah, I think I'd prefer the change that bowls don't count towards your redshirt.
Even that said PURELY FROM A FAN STANDPOINT, NOT FROM A PLAYERS FAIRNESS STANDPOINT, I've come back a bit on that.
Initially it seemed great, as a way to balance kids not playing. But I realized that's great... for your team. I'd be interested to see MSUs true freshmen. Maybe a conference opponents QB. Other than that? Don't care. Turn on a random bowl and Iowa decides to roll with three true freshmen on the OL to get a look at them? I'm turning that off. LSU decides to out in their true freshman QB on a potential game winning drive to see how he handles adversity? I don't care.
So I'm not sure that helps "save" the bowls as much as I initially thought. I actually think it makes me less interested in every non MSU bowl if the teams treat them like NFL preseason games. Particularly because it'll also damage bowl pools, if you can't even rely on how seriously a team will take a game, and that's what gives me a rooting interest in a good number of games, just like the bracket pools in March. I'm guessing Vegas wouldn't like the change either.
-
Frankly I'd be completely ok if they did away with redshirts and everyone was had 5 years to play 5 seasons, if they wanted.
-
I don't understand the need for any change. If anything, I would prefer ELA's idea about simply ignoring bowl participation. Actually, I don't really have a problem with this, because bowls are "extra time" (but would it also be allowed in the playoff games?)
But instead of passing the "any four games" rule, let's just extend eligibility to five years straightaway and be done with it (I'm not in favor of this, it's not a professional league, but we should at least "man up" and admit what the change really is).
Maybe I'm wrong. What am I missing?
-
How about just limiting players to 5 years and just 48 total regular season games played, plus an unlimited number of bowls and CCG in 5 years.
-
I think 4 games is too many. I'd be good with 2 or 3. coaches could play freshman against the cupcake ooc games and then decide who to redshirt.
-
Frankly I'd be completely ok if they did away with redshirts and everyone was had 5 years to play 5 seasons, if they wanted.
this is my take as well.
i'm good with the proposal, too.
but why not just do away with the need for redshirts (sans medical).
-
Trying to decide how I feel about this. I'm in favor of the bowl proposal, but not sure about this. My initial reaction is to agree with Geolion. Four seems like too many. I think two plus the bowl would be good. It might be nice to be able to get some true freshman's feet wet against an OOC Cupcake and I like it for bowls particularly to offset the growing trend of non-participation but I don't think it should be 1/3 of the season.
-
The five year proposal could do a lot to increase parity. Schools that don't typically get 5* recruits likely headed to the NFL would have more fifth year guys which would compensate for the extra talent of the 5* guys who leave in three years.
-
I think 4 games is too many. I'd be good with 2 or 3. coaches could play freshman against the cupcake ooc games and then decide who to redshirt.
I like this idea. 4 games just seems a bit excessive. 2 games gives you the bowl plus flexibility if a guy goes down late in the season. If a guy goes down in October, you're probably burning a shirt to begin with.
-
The five year proposal could do a lot to increase parity. Schools that don't typically get 5* recruits likely headed to the NFL would have more fifth year guys which would compensate for the extra talent of the 5* guys who leave in three years.
Unless they also eliminate the sitting out a year after transferring rule.
Then the Group of 5 becomes nothing more than glorified prep school.
-
Unless they also eliminate the sitting out a year after transferring rule.
Then the Group of 5 becomes nothing more than glorified prep school.
this has always been my argument against removing the transfer sit rule. it'd greatly benefit bama and other top teams, imo, much more so than the smaller schools.
-
this has always been my argument against removing the transfer sit rule. it'd greatly benefit bama and other top teams, imo, much more so than the smaller schools.
I hadn't thought about that, but you guys are right. Doing away with the requirement to sit out for a year would greatly benefit schools like mine and RTF's because overlooked "diamonds in the rough" who proved their abilities in three (or four if this change is made) years at a G5 or even a lower-tier P5 school could transfer to contend for a NC their senior year at Bama/tOSU. I think it would end up being a MAJOR addition to the typical recruiting. Bama/tOSU would look for 5* HS recruits some good in-state kids and then fill positions of need from other teams' rosters.
-
In some ways, I also disagree with the idea of allowing them to play in bowls. If you're a redshirt, you're a redshirt.
One of the small advantages of bowls is that it allows more official practice time, and I'm sure some of those younger players get more run than they would while some of the outgoing seniors perhaps get a little less.
But we have enough "the rich get richer" issues in college football, and then giving those players extra real-life in-game experience is just one additional way to keep bowl teams up and keep non-bowl teams down.
If we want to have more parity, we shouldn't be making it worse.
-
Chuck Long played in five bowl games. He is either the only (the only at Iowa), or one of the few in college football to have done so. And that's because in 1981-82 season Iowa was in the Rose Bowl, and he took a few snaps as a true freshman at the end of the Rose Bowl. He did not lose eligibility for the following season because I think the rule was different.
Okay -- here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Long
"Long redshirted for the Iowa Hawkeyes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Hawkeyes_Football) in 1981. However, the redshirting rule was new, so Long was able to take a couple of snaps during his redshirt season. The rule has since been changed; now, a player cannot participate in a single play during his redshirt season. While Long played very sparingly in 1981, he did run a couple of plays at the very end of the 1982 Rose Bowl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Rose_Bowl); because of this, he later became the only College Football Player to ever play in five bowl games."
-
Postponing any further discussions until 2019.