http://footballscoop.com/news/redshirted...owl-games/

I like it.

I like the 4 games part as much as the bowl games part. As they said, this could help alleviate some of the problems of the longer season. I can see it being used not just to replenish depleted positions, but as a preventive measure as well, similar to the way major league baseball teams often rest their veterans as the playoffs approach. This could cut down on fatigue-based injuries.

The other side of that approach is this: would we see FBS schools try to schedule their FCS opponents late in the year and give practically the whole team a rest, playing a primarily redshirt roster? The fan base probably wouldn't respond well to that.

I may change my mind but I don't think 4 games is a good idea. I would be fine with just the Bowl game since that game is considered an exhibition game anyway but letting red-shirted players go up to 4 games is too much IMHO.

(05-09-2017 09:11 AM)jim121256 Wrote:  I like the 4 games part as much as the bowl games part. As they said, this could help alleviate some of the problems of the longer season. I can see it being used not just to replenish depleted positions, but as a preventive measure as well, similar to the way major league baseball teams often rest their veterans as the playoffs approach. This could cut down on fatigue-based injuries.

The other side of that approach is this: would we see FBS schools try to schedule their FCS opponents late in the year and give practically the whole team a rest, playing a primarily redshirt roster? The fan base probably wouldn't respond well to that.

Will it really matter for an FCS game? An FCS game will likely go down like they usually do 90+% of the time starters in until the score is high then try and get the whole team in by the end of the game now a few red shirt guys will be mixed in.

(05-09-2017 12:17 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  I may change my mind but I don't think 4 games is a good idea. I would be fine with just the Bowl game since that game is considered an exhibition game anyway but letting red-shirted players go up to 4 games is too much IMHO.

I would say only if a team can show they have multiple injuries at one position but four is high if we are talking about them playing like a starter.

Ultimately, this would be abused.

The right thing to do, and easiest, is to just get rid of the redshirt. Give kids 5 years for eligibility and be done with it. It takes a lot of kids 5 years to get their degree when playing sports anyway.

(05-09-2017 05:00 PM)Usajags Wrote:  The right thing to do, and easiest, is to just get rid of the redshirt. Give kids 5 years for eligibility and be done with it. It takes a lot of kids 5 years to get their degree when playing sports anyway.

Would you increase the number of scholarships to compensate? Otherwise, that would reduce the number of student-athletes nationwide by thousands.

(05-10-2017 03:27 PM)bokobobcat1919 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:00 PM)Usajags Wrote:  The right thing to do, and easiest, is to just get rid of the redshirt. Give kids 5 years for eligibility and be done with it. It takes a lot of kids 5 years to get their degree when playing sports anyway.

Would you increase the number of scholarships to compensate? Otherwise, that would reduce the number of student-athletes nationwide by thousands.

How do you figure that??? In FBS you are allowed 85 scholarship players, that currently includes redshirt players. So tell me where we are losing student athletes???

(05-10-2017 08:08 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 03:27 PM)bokobobcat1919 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:00 PM)Usajags Wrote:  The right thing to do, and easiest, is to just get rid of the redshirt. Give kids 5 years for eligibility and be done with it. It takes a lot of kids 5 years to get their degree when playing sports anyway.

Would you increase the number of scholarships to compensate? Otherwise, that would reduce the number of student-athletes nationwide by thousands.

How do you figure that??? In FBS you are allowed 85 scholarship players, that currently includes redshirt players. So tell me where we are losing student athletes???

I think his premise is correct, just not explained quite right. You are correct, overall hard numbers would not change, still 85 schollys per team. The "impact" would be in smaller class size the first year after such a change. Currently, at least at most bigger programs, a majority of "fifth year seniors" (i.e. redshirt seniors) get firm handshakes and a "you've had four years to get your degree, we thank you for your service, but we no longer can keep you". If that went away via all kids getting 5 years, it's mean more kids being retained, therefore less room for incoming kids. It'd smooth itself out after a point... But again, wouldn't lead to overall loss in scholly numbers.

I don't think coaches wanna go that route though. They like the turnover and I think few would agree that by five years you're finding guys who just now turned into stars. They'd rather the shiny new prospect.

The fix I've seen mentioned, and I think/hope will eventually pass, is raise the limit to 100 kids signed in a rolling 4 year period. As a side effect it ends the 85 total schollys, the 25 per class limit with backdating, greyshirts, medical redshirts, etc. The hope is it makes cut and dry (more transparent) what a school's allowances are. It would stop coaches forcing kids to transfer out, or into medical redshirts to make room, because it would NOT change the overall allowance.

(05-09-2017 02:13 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  Ultimately, this would be abused.

How so?

(05-11-2017 07:40 AM)MOTIAW Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 08:08 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 03:27 PM)bokobobcat1919 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:00 PM)Usajags Wrote:  The right thing to do, and easiest, is to just get rid of the redshirt. Give kids 5 years for eligibility and be done with it. It takes a lot of kids 5 years to get their degree when playing sports anyway.

Would you increase the number of scholarships to compensate? Otherwise, that would reduce the number of student-athletes nationwide by thousands.

How do you figure that??? In FBS you are allowed 85 scholarship players, that currently includes redshirt players. So tell me where we are losing student athletes???

I think his premise is correct, just not explained quite right. You are correct, overall hard numbers would not change, still 85 schollys per team. The "impact" would be in smaller class size the first year after such a change. Currently, at least at most bigger programs, a majority of "fifth year seniors" (i.e. redshirt seniors) get firm handshakes and a "you've had four years to get your degree, we thank you for your service, but we no longer can keep you". If that went away via all kids getting 5 years, it's mean more kids being retained, therefore less room for incoming kids. It'd smooth itself out after a point... But again, wouldn't lead to overall loss in scholly numbers.

I don't think coaches wanna go that route though. They like the turnover and I think few would agree that by five years you're finding guys who just now turned into stars. They'd rather the shiny new prospect.

The fix I've seen mentioned, and I think/hope will eventually pass, is raise the limit to 100 kids signed in a rolling 4 year period. As a side effect it ends the 85 total schollys, the 25 per class limit with backdating, greyshirts, medical redshirts, etc. The hope is it makes cut and dry (more transparent) what a school's allowances are. It would stop coaches forcing kids to transfer out, or into medical redshirts to make room, because it would NOT change the overall allowance.

100 scholarships, you realize what that would do in even further separating the P5 and G5???

(05-11-2017 04:53 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 07:40 AM)MOTIAW Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 08:08 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 03:27 PM)bokobobcat1919 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:00 PM)Usajags Wrote:  The right thing to do, and easiest, is to just get rid of the redshirt. Give kids 5 years for eligibility and be done with it. It takes a lot of kids 5 years to get their degree when playing sports anyway.

Would you increase the number of scholarships to compensate? Otherwise, that would reduce the number of student-athletes nationwide by thousands.

How do you figure that??? In FBS you are allowed 85 scholarship players, that currently includes redshirt players. So tell me where we are losing student athletes???

I think his premise is correct, just not explained quite right. You are correct, overall hard numbers would not change, still 85 schollys per team. The "impact" would be in smaller class size the first year after such a change. Currently, at least at most bigger programs, a majority of "fifth year seniors" (i.e. redshirt seniors) get firm handshakes and a "you've had four years to get your degree, we thank you for your service, but we no longer can keep you". If that went away via all kids getting 5 years, it's mean more kids being retained, therefore less room for incoming kids. It'd smooth itself out after a point... But again, wouldn't lead to overall loss in scholly numbers.

I don't think coaches wanna go that route though. They like the turnover and I think few would agree that by five years you're finding guys who just now turned into stars. They'd rather the shiny new prospect.

The fix I've seen mentioned, and I think/hope will eventually pass, is raise the limit to 100 kids signed in a rolling 4 year period. As a side effect it ends the 85 total schollys, the 25 per class limit with backdating, greyshirts, medical redshirts, etc. The hope is it makes cut and dry (more transparent) what a school's allowances are. It would stop coaches forcing kids to transfer out, or into medical redshirts to make room, because it would NOT change the overall allowance.

100 scholarships, you realize what that would do in even further separating the P5 and G5???

Yes, but what exactly hasn't been changed in that manner already? Would guarantee you there is more to come. For the record, I'm a firm believer in the 64 team, 16 school P4 mega conferences happening. Inevitable. As their budgets continue to grow, there will be a reckoning to finance it all. Doesn't mean I like it for the rest of the world.

But the focus has been on, will be on, putting those schools on equal footing with each other, hence things like COA, limits on non-coach staffing, etc. Recruiting is one variable missing, some conferences have stricter caps, some schools abuse medical redshirts, etc. Something will happen, and it'll mean an increase because there's no way they're going backwards... the 85 isn't enough already the way some abuse it.