What's new
By:
  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Redshirt rule change passed, players can play in up to 4 games without burning RS

BehindEnemyLines said:
It's been pretty standard practice for coaches to meet with players before a season to discuss a redshirt. I can see this still happening even with the new rule - perhaps to a lesser degree.

If players aren't required to sit 1 year upon transferring, this all may be moot. Unless there are other rules/requirements imposed by a conference. In that instance a player could lose the rs that he could have used as his "sit" year.

I just hope we don't see it used as a punishment for transferring players.
Click to expand...
I still don't get your objection.

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Scenario[/TD][TD]Current Rule[/TD][TD]New Rule[/TD][TD]outcome[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 1 game, then transfers[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 4 games, then transfers[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 5+ games, then transfers[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 0 games, then transfers [/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three [/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
Please explain to me how the new rules are better or worse for transfers?
 
Last edited:
skibum said:
I still don't get your objection.

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Scenario[/TD][TD]Current Rule[/TD][TD]New Rule[/TD][TD]outcome[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 1 game, then transfers[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 4 games, then transfers[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 5+ games, then transfers[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 0 games, then transfers [/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three [/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
Please explain me how the new rules are better or worse for transfers?
Click to expand...
I'm curious, too.

Also, I appreciate that a lot of folks seem focused on thinking of ways that a kid could possibly be screwed over. That's commendable. But try to keep in mind that coaches are very unlikely to do things that go against their self interest for the sole purpose of screwing up a kid's life. Some level of that does go on in order to send a message to other players on the team, but let's not go overboard with fears that a coach will do something completely stupid and immoral because he would take some perverse pleasure in serving up a vendetta on a kid.
 
Buffnik said:
Important thing with that, though, is that I don't believe a conference would have jurisdiction within its rules for anything beyond transfers from once conference member to another.

That's a tough one for me, actually. On one hand, I don't want to see rivals poaching each other and this would be much worse and more likely within a conference. On the other hand, I don't know why a conference would want talent to drain out of the conference if a guy decided to transfer.
Click to expand...

This would have a positive impact on those kids who decide to go to school someplace far from home and then want to transfer back for whatever reason.

The one that comes to mind is a few years ago a big DT from LA signed with and spent his Fr. year with Nebraska. In that year he had a parent (don't remember which one) get sick and he wanted to transfer back to UCLA to be close. Those classy folks in the AD of Nebraska denied his request, told him they would only approve a transfer to a G5 or lower school.

IIRC the public pressure became great enough that they finally released him but this kind of thing should never happen. A kid with a sick family member should not be tied down half a continent away because some coach doesn't want to let him go.

The kid would still have to sit out for a year which is fine but no kid should have to pick between family and playing college football. The in-conference restrictions would still say the PAC could deny a player from leaving UCLA to play at USC which is reasonable.
 
skibum said:
I still don't get your objection.

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Scenario[/TD][TD]Current Rule[/TD][TD]New Rule[/TD][TD]outcome[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 1 game, then transfers[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 4 games, then transfers[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 5+ games, then transfers[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kid plays 0 games, then transfers [/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three [/TD][TD]Has to sit out one year, then can play three[/TD][TD]No change[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
Please explain to me how the new rules are better or worse for transfers?
Click to expand...

Nice work, Ski.

That helped me see that in my original scenario, I forgot to carry the 1. :whistle:

Okay, I'm good.
 
I like this rule. I actually think it helps a team like CU more than the Blue-Bloods. Say you're heading downt he stretch with 3 games left, 1 game to win to bowl eligibility or your conf championship (in a super lucky year). You've been piece-mealing you D-back or O-line or QBs due to injury. Now your last one goes down and the only thing you have left is a running back or wide receiver who played a few downs in high school. F. Now you can throw your 3/4-star RS Freshman in there for 2 games and not totally screw him over.
For teams like Alabama or USC or Ohio State, who's third string ISN'T a walk-on (or even have a third string in the first place), it's not going to matter much for them.
 
What happens if a player gets injured during one of their 4 games during their red shirt year, do they red shirt the next year? And then if they get injured during one of their 4 games that second red shirt year? Are they then just done with red shirts, or do they try for a medical red shirt (3rd)?
 
CUAviator said:
What happens if a player gets injured during one of their 4 games during their red shirt year, do they red shirt the next year? And then if they get injured during one of their 4 games that second red shirt year? Are they then just done with red shirts, or do they try for a medical red shirt (3rd)?
Click to expand...
The player gets 5 years to play 4 full seasons and an additional 4 games. Injuries don’t matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top