Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • 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!

Should the "redshirt" be eliminated?

Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Why do we have redshirt years?

Most students take closer to 5 years than 4 in order to complete a degree.

So, why not give athletes 5 years of eligibility with no redshirt season?

Then, if a guy loses a year to injury, simply grant an extra season of eligibility.

I don't understand why a guy is on a team, on scholarship, but not allowed to play. Or, if a team has injuries and needs to play a guy on a very limited basis, why it should cost someone a full year of eligibility. It seems like a waste of resources and talent that is neither good for the programs or the players.

Stupid ass rule.
 
I wonder what the effect would be for the lesser players that now get redshirted.

I'd be fine with the elimination of it.
 
I think they'll always be around because Universities never want to have to imply that anyone should take more than four years to get their degree. More and more students take the five-year route for a variety of reasons, but those students are paying for the extra year(s). Academic scholarships are for four years, and any credit hours beyond are out-of-pocket. If student athletes were suddenly all around for five years (to include those in non-revenue generating sports, because any such rule would apply to them, too), the increase in cost would put many ADs in the red.
 
BuffNut99 said:
I think they'll always be around because Universities never want to have to imply that anyone should take more than four years to get their degree. More and more students take the five-year route for a variety of reasons, but those students are paying for the extra year(s). Academic scholarships are for four years, and any credit hours beyond are out-of-pocket. If student athletes were suddenly all around for five years (to include those in non-revenue generating sports, because any such rule would apply to them, too), the increase in cost would put many ADs in the red.
Click to expand...

No. Spending per student-athlete might increase since they'd be around longer on average. But scholarship limits would be the same, so annual scholarship costs would be the same. An 85-man scholarship football is what it is. Universities may actually save money since with players sticking around longer the annual class sizes and relative recruiting budgets might shrink.
 
Players have 4 years of eligibility. The red shirt allows them a year off. What's wrong with that? Granting a fifth year is a different proposition than eliminating red shirts. I don't think players should have a fifth year, except for existing cases like a medical hardship.
 
Buffnik said:
No. Spending per student-athlete might increase since they'd be around longer on average. But scholarship limits would be the same, so annual scholarship costs would be the same. An 85-man scholarship football is what it is. Universities may actually save money since with players sticking around longer the annual class sizes and relative recruiting budgets might shrink.
Click to expand...
Putting it terms of scholarship limits, don't forget that sometimes you want players to move on (e.g. Lowell Williams). If you don't redshirt them, they only take up a spot for four years.
 
Wouldn't 5 year scholarships make it tougher for a new coach to come in and turn a program around? It would also be more difficult to deal with the 85 scholarship limit. And what if they go to an 80 scholarship limit? It might also make a coach less apt to take a flyer on a kid who might be a sleeper.
 
Last edited:
Either way you have the same number of guys. Either way, you could push kids to summer school and encourage them to graduate & leave if they weren't contributing. Challenges, yes. Just a little different than the current challenges.
 
I would bet in the next 5 years, the red shirt goes away and athletes get a 5 years to play or not play. No more medical waivers or red shirts, it's just 5 years.
 
I think this is one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of deals. I don't see the problem with how the system is now. Seems to work OK.
 
sackman said:
I think this is one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of deals. I don't see the problem with how the system is now. Seems to work OK.
Click to expand...
Plus, what would you call the extra year? You've got your freshmen, your sophomores, your juniors and your seniors. What would the fifth year be called? Super Senior? Sorry man. It just doesn't work.
 
Think of all the individual career records that would be broken by guys getting an extra season. Would skew the history of the game. Do not want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
sackman said:
I think this is one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of deals. I don't see the problem with how the system is now. Seems to work OK.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Not sure I see an issue here. I think you would see half a class gray shirting then.
 
tante said:
Wouldn't getting rid of redshirts just help the top tier programs?
Click to expand...

I think so.

The programs that are able to recruit those kids who are ready to play right away would get an extra year with them.

Programs trying to grow through developing talent would still be forced to keep kids on the bench for at least a year of development.
 
It's not like elite talent would stay all 5 years. They hardly stay 4, now. I'm still fine with the current system. It makes the math for scholarships more fun to speculate on in September and October once it's clear which true freshmen are playing and which won't.
 
Not a good idea, imo, for a variety of reasons already posted above.

Irrelevant though also because the schools would never allow it. They live in a '4 years should be enough' world and they're not going to want to recognize that it's becoming less and less of the norm.
 
DBT said:
Plus, what would you call the extra year? You've got your freshmen, your sophomores, your juniors and your seniors. What would the fifth year be called? Super Senior? Sorry man. It just doesn't work.
Click to expand...

I propose calling the first year "Redshirt."
 
They have classes in skunky beer, jelly doughnuts, tooks, and shriveled up ham.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top