Sounds like a good idea to me ---
http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... rule-tweak
Red Shirt Rules Changing?
-
WVAPPeer
- Posts: 12445
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:14 am
- School: Other
- Location: Born: Almost Heaven
- Has thanked: 4920 times
- Been thanked: 2658 times
-
EastHallApp
- Posts: 6804
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:34 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Location: Raleigh
- Has thanked: 3388 times
- Been thanked: 2956 times
Re: Red Shirt Rules Changing?
Sounds OK to a point. I know there's also been a proposal to allow redshirted players to compete in bowl games, which could be OK.
If they do that four-game rule, though, I think it should be limited to the first half of the season or so. I don't think teams should be allowed to sit out guys for the first 8-9 games and then play them for the stretch run without it counting toward their eligibility.
Also, LOL at Saban's crocodile tears about the early signing date and not having enough time for "evaluation." I'm sure he really needs that last month when the recruits aren't playing any more games to unearth those hidden gems who are only 4* instead of 5*.
If they do that four-game rule, though, I think it should be limited to the first half of the season or so. I don't think teams should be allowed to sit out guys for the first 8-9 games and then play them for the stretch run without it counting toward their eligibility.
Also, LOL at Saban's crocodile tears about the early signing date and not having enough time for "evaluation." I'm sure he really needs that last month when the recruits aren't playing any more games to unearth those hidden gems who are only 4* instead of 5*.
-
Yosef84
- Posts: 3840
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:27 am
- Has thanked: 1385 times
- Been thanked: 2175 times
Re: Red Shirt Rules Changing?
I didn't read anything that indicated there would be a limitation on when the games could be played. (Maybe I missed something). In fact, the article mentioned that it could benefit teams who were thin in a position due to injuries and allow players to have a "mid season" trial. Seems like this could benefit the G5 teams who tend to struggle more with depth than the P5....or at least the top of the P5.
The article also throws out the possibility of simply expanding eligibility to 5 years and doing away with the red-shirt altogether, although I don't believe this proposal is on the table. That would simplify administration but seems like it would definitely benefit the wealthier programs. Might be a good thing for graduation rates, although I imagine many will continue to opt for the draft early. If the roster limit remained at 85, this would seem to reduce the number of players that a program could tie up though....which might benefit the G5. My guess is that, if that proposal were ever pushed, they would also push to expand the number of slots.
The article also throws out the possibility of simply expanding eligibility to 5 years and doing away with the red-shirt altogether, although I don't believe this proposal is on the table. That would simplify administration but seems like it would definitely benefit the wealthier programs. Might be a good thing for graduation rates, although I imagine many will continue to opt for the draft early. If the roster limit remained at 85, this would seem to reduce the number of players that a program could tie up though....which might benefit the G5. My guess is that, if that proposal were ever pushed, they would also push to expand the number of slots.