Redshirt rule change - Freshman can play in 4 games
- Thread starter jrd23psu
- Start date
I slid this nugget in on the thread about the NCAA not blocking transfers.
In all fairness, this is not a nugget. This is a huge college football shift.
Fifty years ago, before freshman could play at all their freshman year, after three years in college the most you could have played is 22 games (0 your 1st year, and 11 each of your 2nd and 3rd, since the regular season was 10 games then, plus 1 bowl game).
Now, with a 12 game regular season, 1 conference title game and 2 playoff games, after three years in college someone could play 45 games. Twice as much.
Now, with a 12 game regular season, 1 conference title game and 2 playoff games, after three years in college someone could play 45 games. Twice as much.
It will be very interesting to see how Coach Franklin strategizes this rule. I am totally confident he will leverage it the very best way possible to maximize the benefit for PSU football.
This isn't meant as a negative at all but I don't think it will have much impact on us or that Franklin is even going to give it much consideration. He wants guys out of here in 3 years if possible and doesn't want a bunch of 5th year kids with obvious exceptions. Kids staying for 5 doesn't help recruiting. If anything I think he'll use kids in mop up situations against the MAC schools of the world. JMO
You're assuming sophomores wouldn't play?
They were needed for depth and often for their talent. Example: '67 season, At Miami, JVP brings in his sophs on Defense one or two at a time to replace the upperclassmen starters. Those sophs become the backbone of those great '68 and '69 Defenses that dominated for PSU. Those guys, 50+ years ago, played 33 games.
There are multiple good things I see.
As Franklin has said in commenting on this, you don't learn some things about players (and they don't learn about themselves) until they play against college players for the first time. This lets the coaches try out players in early season games as part of the evaluation process. Like for example this year they could use help at TE and DT. They can try out Culpepper, Mustipher, Kuntz and Friermuth.
I think it also can help out when a team has a bunch of injuries at a position. They can add freshmen to the rotation for a few games until someone heals. So someone like Cam Brown wouldn't have to burn a redshirt just to be a sub for 2 games because of injuries. This also hopefully means less pressure to play players who are banged up.
It all feeds into freshmen being more important in college football. Clearly they're getting better training and coaching at the HS level, so there are more freshmen ready to participate than there's ever been before. And the top tier of players are going to be leaving for the NFL.
Plus, schools like PSU are having kids take a full classload over the summer so many are graduating in 3 years.
As Franklin has said in commenting on this, you don't learn some things about players (and they don't learn about themselves) until they play against college players for the first time. This lets the coaches try out players in early season games as part of the evaluation process. Like for example this year they could use help at TE and DT. They can try out Culpepper, Mustipher, Kuntz and Friermuth.
I think it also can help out when a team has a bunch of injuries at a position. They can add freshmen to the rotation for a few games until someone heals. So someone like Cam Brown wouldn't have to burn a redshirt just to be a sub for 2 games because of injuries. This also hopefully means less pressure to play players who are banged up.
It all feeds into freshmen being more important in college football. Clearly they're getting better training and coaching at the HS level, so there are more freshmen ready to participate than there's ever been before. And the top tier of players are going to be leaving for the NFL.
Plus, schools like PSU are having kids take a full classload over the summer so many are graduating in 3 years.
He was using 3 seasons--not counting their senior year. Hence up to 45 for kids now...they could hit 60 after 4 years
I meant that Freshman didn't play (I think) back then. So you'd play at most 0 games your Freshman year and 11 your Soph and Jr each. After three years out of college you played at most 22 games.
I just looked it up and freshen became eligible in 1968-69 for all sports except football and basketball and then for those in 1972-73.
So the total would be 11 x 3 = 33 back then and 15 x 4 = 60 now.
Even the minimum now, of four 12 game regular seasons and not making any bowl games, you get 48, which is well above the maximum of 33 back then.
My rant: Just give everyone 5 years of eligibility! Let the coaches decide when they are ready to play, taking into consideration both on-field and off-field preparedness! If they aren't ready in any area, no difference than before! If they are ready, why not use them!
3 and out is a great goal, both academically and athletically, but the reality is those are relatively few. Transfers may come into play before that, imo.
Nothing wrong with having one or two 5th year players starting on the OL. I agree that that could hamper some recruiting, as kids see a longer path to starting.
It does make recruiting more interesting, it makes early enrollment more important for some kids, it does make for more 'time to move on talks', most likely.
Franklin is smart in that he builds up special teams contributions as being extremely important roles to the overall team. Having true freshmen playing in some key special teams positions and still having 4 years to contribute after that is a good thing on many levels - experience, teamwork, depth, engagement of the individual player, and more.
The same number of scholarships are available even if 15 players redshirt or not. Not change there. Injuries come into play regardless. Just give them the 5th year, and eliminate some of that paperwork and opportunities to screw around with it by having to count games played.
With the 4 game rule, I'm guessing some will see time in the 3 non-conf games and maybe the bowl. Some will not play until ready in October, and then maybe only in certain conf games. To me, once you've given them 4, why not 5? Why not 6? Why not 8? Once they've played in 1/3 of your games, who cares if they play more than that? Or less? Let the coaches decide. They are paid the big bucks to make such decisions and deal with the players and parents as a result of those decisions.
I have no issue with any of this...the only problem is how does it impact recruiting. Are fans going to be mad when kids get "pushed out" after 4 years. Do you owe the kid 5? I don't have an issue with 5 years of eligibility just trying to figure out how it would work. I'm all about after 3 years you should have your degree and then we make a football decision.
Simple fix. Get rid of the overall limit and give schools a fixed annual limit. Pick a number between 18-25.
I’m not disagreeing with you or minimizing the impact this will have on college football.
I think he wants kids to graduate in 3 years so they'll have a degree if they leave early (NFL or otherwise). I think he's quite happy to have McSorley back this year.
P.S. I don't think most are graduating in 3 years but it's an admirable goal.
I think it will help recruiting, though. Early playing time is a big deal to a lot of kids. With elite schools with loads of talent it's hard to get on the field as a TRFR. Coaches aren't going to burn a redshit to get you some early PT. I think schools lose on some kids because of this. Kids end up choosing schools with easier paths to playing right away. Now that kids can play in four games as TRFR coaches can promise them early playing time even if they are set at their position. They know there are going to be games where the 3rd/4th string are in at the end of the third quarter. It won't affect their redshirt and they are still getting on the field early. Kids might not be so eager to pass up on a school PSU to get on the field right away at another school if they know they'll get some game time in as a TRFR, even if it's mop up duty.
The downside is that some of those walk-on kids may lose that mop up duty time to TRFR.
McSorley is the exception not the rule. I don't think it has anything to do with kids leaving for the NFL...leaving early for other reasons fine depending on what you mean by other reasons
The kids we're recruiting are expecting to be on the field from day one and contributing...not just playing in 4 games. I can't imagine a kid turning down a chance to play day 1 to possibly play in four games.
And I'll acknowledge that I could be way off base. Personally, I'd like to see kids just have four years of eligibility with the clock starting day 1. Fifth years would only be granted for kids that transferred and were required to sit out a yet or suffered an injury (or if there was some kind of hardship)
I agree that there comes a point where you've past the point of no return. And by that I mean if you've played in four games, then what difference does it make if you play in five? Or six? I think a third of the season (4 games) is the point of no return. It might as well be 5 years to play 5.
I will also say I am 100% behind the rule change and would be behind just saying 5 to play 5.
The first thing I thought about here, is that if a kid happens to go down with a season ending injury before his 5th game, he still keeps his redshirt year.
Right, but a player could go down week 1 or 2 and he could come back for the conference championship game/playoff/bowl and maybe not use a year of eligibility. Some interesting scenarios will likely come up.
Did NOT consider that. That is an excellent point.
OR, you save a kid for the end of the season, and you play him in crucial situations, and if the total is still 4, you still have the shirt.
I brought something similar to this up a while back and someone who writes all of his posts in bold said it was stupid because if the kid is that good he would start all season.
My counter to that is what if a kid makes huge strides in his play at practice or was hurt and finally becomes healthy at the end of the year.
Note: The former discussion was about letting true freshmen play in bowl games without burning a redshirt which I'm all for.
Last edited:
Which is what Saban and Meyer will likely do and people will get angry saying that's not within the spirit of the rule
Or, in our case, a player like John Reid who was injured in the spring could have played once he got healthy late in the season without burning his redshirt.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Basketball NitBits: Penn State hoops trending well for SEC transfer
- Latest: interrobang
