ACC Proposes Rule Change for Redshirts

#1

Burhead

God-Emperor of Politics
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
26,153
Likes
9,924
#1
ACC proposes adjustment to archaic redshirt rule – CollegeFootballTalk

The ACC is calling for a rule change where a player can redshirt if they play 4 or fewer games regardless of which point during the season they play. I completely agree with this proposal, if they don't adopt this change they should go back to making freshmen ineligible their first year. There is no reason why, for example, Shea Patterson at Ole Miss lost his RS in 2016 for 3 games after Kelly tore his ACL. That is not fair to the kid, the coach, nor the program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 18 people
#3
#3
ACC proposes adjustment to archaic redshirt rule – CollegeFootballTalk

The ACC is calling for a rule change where a player can redshirt if they play 4 or fewer games regardless of which point during the season they play. I completely agree with this proposal, if they don't adopt this change they should go back to making freshmen ineligible their first year. There is no reason why, for example, Shea Patterson at Ole Miss lost his RS in 2016 for 3 games after Kelly tore his ACL. That is not fair to the kid, the coach, nor the program.

Not making it retroactive is what would be unfair. They figure out a better way but don't apply it to current players that could benefit from the rule change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4
#4
ACC proposes adjustment to archaic redshirt rule – CollegeFootballTalk

The ACC is calling for a rule change where a player can redshirt if they play 4 or fewer games regardless of which point during the season they play. I completely agree with this proposal, if they don't adopt this change they should go back to making freshmen ineligible their first year. There is no reason why, for example, Shea Patterson at Ole Miss lost his RS in 2016 for 3 games after Kelly tore his ACL. That is not fair to the kid, the coach, nor the program.

I think it should measured in minutes played in a season, not games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
I think it should measured in minutes played in a season, not games.

On one hand I agree, but on the other - what prevents a coach from playing an impact player just a few minutes in each game?

For example, it was obvious in the CFP game that Tua gave Bama a spark offensively. What would have prevented Saban from having him in that first series of teh 2nd hal, scoring teh TD, and then yanking him back out...he would have maintained all of his eligibility for this year under a 'minutes measured' rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6
#6
On one hand I agree, but on the other - what prevents a coach from playing an impact player just a few minutes in each game?

For example, it was obvious in the CFP game that Tua gave Bama a spark offensively. What would have prevented Saban from having him in that first series of teh 2nd hal, scoring teh TD, and then yanking him back out...he would have maintained all of his eligibility for this year under a 'minutes measured' rule.

True. But at the same time, I don't think the same rule should apply to a kid who played 16 quarters VS a kid who only played 4 quarters. That's why I think it should be measured in minutes.
 
#7
#7
True. But at the same time, I don't think the same rule should apply to a kid who played 16 quarters VS a kid who only played 4 quarters. That's why I think it should be measured in minutes.

What does it hurt? If 16 quarters is the max, then you're either under it or you are not.

What about a kicker, long snapper, punter, etc? If it were based on minutes, he might be able to play all season and still red shirt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8
#8
Didn't the rule already get changed some? So that players you are redshirting can play in bowl games now without losing it, or was that just talk?
 
#9
#9
True. But at the same time, I don't think the same rule should apply to a kid who played 16 quarters VS a kid who only played 4 quarters. That's why I think it should be measured in minutes.

So you are against the rule change as written?
 
#10
#10
The problem is people will abuse it and play a stud player(but better options ahead of them) for the big games like top rivals. Like take the RS out and play him for Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and someone else. It would be a way for them to get exposure to big games even as a RS. Not a big fan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
What does it hurt? If 16 quarters is the max, then you're either under it or you are not.

What about a kicker, long snapper, punter, etc? If it were based on minutes, he might be able to play all season and still red shirt.

The link isn't specific but I'm pretty sure it is going to be "appears" in 4 games regardless of time played in those games. Could be 4 minutes - 1 per game or 16 quarters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
ACC proposes adjustment to archaic redshirt rule – CollegeFootballTalk

The ACC is calling for a rule change where a player can redshirt if they play 4 or fewer games regardless of which point during the season they play. I completely agree with this proposal, if they don't adopt this change they should go back to making freshmen ineligible their first year. There is no reason why, for example, Shea Patterson at Ole Miss lost his RS in 2016 for 3 games after Kelly tore his ACL. That is not fair to the kid, the coach, nor the program.
it'd be like managing an NFL roster...actives/inactives week to week....
 
#17
#17
The problem is people will abuse it and play a stud player(but better options ahead of them) for the big games like top rivals. Like take the RS out and play him for Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and someone else. It would be a way for them to get exposure to big games even as a RS. Not a big fan.

Yea. That is what i would do. Any smart coach will abuse the s**** out of this. Not really a fan either.
 
#19
#19
ACC proposes adjustment to archaic redshirt rule – CollegeFootballTalk

The ACC is calling for a rule change where a player can redshirt if they play 4 or fewer games regardless of which point during the season they play. I completely agree with this proposal, if they don't adopt this change they should go back to making freshmen ineligible their first year. There is no reason why, for example, Shea Patterson at Ole Miss lost his RS in 2016 for 3 games after Kelly tore his ACL. That is not fair to the kid, the coach, nor the program.

Any good/great player would only be at a school for 3 years regardless.
 
#22
#22
The problem is people will abuse it and play a stud player(but better options ahead of them) for the big games like top rivals. Like take the RS out and play him for Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and someone else. It would be a way for them to get exposure to big games even as a RS. Not a big fan.

I think you are way overthinking this one, and assuming there is only 1 stud player.

You can't just plug and play in football. The players have roles and compliment each other. You won't win games playing some guys only in the most difficult games. they won't be ready and you will lose.

Beside that, the "stud" players are only going to be there 3 years anyway, regardless of whether they played the first year or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
I think you are way overthinking this one, and assuming there is only 1 stud player.

You can't just plug and play in football. The players have roles and compliment each other. You won't win games playing some guys only in the most difficult games. they won't be ready and you will lose.

Beside that, the "stud" players are only going to be there 3 years anyway, regardless of whether they played the first year or not.

They wouldn’t just do it for stud players. They would play the RS players in cleanup time. Smart coaches would do it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top