Redshirt Changes

[RonJohn]

I just re-read the original post on this thread concerning the new rules. I either ignored or missed the following --- "The new exception allows football players to preserve a season of competition if, for example, injuries or other factors result in them competing in a small number of games." I think many of us have not taken that delimiter into account and have been saying that players could play in 4 games and still be redshirted. But it would seem that injuries are still the key factor, plus "other factors," whatever that might mean. It seems that nothing much has changed other than the number of games an INJURED player could have played in and still be redshirted.

I think you understood that wrong. The NCAA Division I council chair said:

"Redshirt football student-athletes are more likely to remain engaged with the team, and starters will be less likely to feel pressure to play through injuries. Coaches will appreciate the additional flexibility and ability to give younger players an opportunity to participate in limited competition."

I take the quote you posted to mean that if a freshman has to play in two games because the starter and backup are injured, he does not lose his redshirt year. Everything I have seen indicates that they can play in up to 4 games with no restrictions and still keep the redshirt year.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I think you understood that wrong. The NCAA Division I council chair said:


I take the quote you posted to mean that if a freshman has to play in two games because the starter and backup are injured, he does not lose his redshirt year. Everything I have seen indicates that they can play in up to 4 games with no restrictions and still keep the redshirt year.

You MIGHT be correct, and I HOPE that you are, but you know how the NCAA operates, and when a situation arises, they do whatever they damn well please, so I think we had better be careful in giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
As far as the quote I posted, it can actually mean one of two things:
1) "....if, for example, injuries (TO THEM) or other factors result in them (the redshirted players) competing in a small number of games..."
2) "....if, for example, injuries (TO THE STARTERS OR BACKUPS) or other factors result in them (the redshirted players) competing in a small number of games..."
Reading again through the complete statement referenced in the Tweet that was originally posted in this thread, it would SEEM that number 2 MIGHT be what is meant, but again, I wouldn't trust the NCAA to follow through with that.

 

[bobongo]

You MIGHT be correct, and I HOPE that you are, but you know how the NCAA operates, and when a situation arises, they do whatever they damn well please, so I think we had better be careful in giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
As far as the quote I posted, it can actually mean one of two things:
1) "....if, for example, injuries (TO THEM) or other factors result in them (the redshirted players) competing in a small number of games..."
2) "....if, for example, injuries (TO THE STARTERS OR BACKUPS) or other factors result in them (the redshirted players) competing in a small number of games..."
Reading again through the complete statement referenced in the Tweet that was originally posted in this thread, it would SEEM that number 2 MIGHT be what is meant, but again, I wouldn't trust the NCAA to follow through with that.

But it says, "...or other factors".

If not specified, "other factors" could mean any factors at all.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

But it says, "...or other factors".

If not specified, "other factors" could mean any factors at all.

Yeah, and who is to say what those "other factors" are? You know damn well that a team could cite something as one of those "other factors" in requesting a redshirt, and the NCAA could say, "oh, no, that's not one of those 'other factors' that are pertinent." And the really sad thing is that could very easily vary from team to team. They need to provide a list of those "other factors" NOW.

 

[RonJohn]

Yeah, and who is to say what those "other factors" are? You know damn well that a team could cite something as one of those "other factors" in requesting a redshirt, and the NCAA could say, "oh, no, that's not one of those 'other factors' that are pertinent." And the really sad thing is that could very easily vary from team to team. They need to provide a list of those "other factors" NOW.

Well lets go straight to the source: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...otball-offer-more-participation-opportunities

From that article

College athletes competing in Division I football can participate in up to four games in a season without using a season of competition, the Division I Council decided this week at its meeting in Indianapolis.

Seems pretty clear to me that any athlete can participate in up to four games without using a season of competition,(Which means redshirt year) There are no caveats in that statement.

Here is the actual change: https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=101282

12.8 Seasons of Competition: Five-Year Rule. A student-athlete shall not engage in more than four seasons of intercollegiate competition in any one sport (see Bylaws 12.02.5 and 14.3.3). An institution shall not permit a student-athlete to represent it in intercollegiate competition unless the individual completes all of his or her seasons of participation in all sports within the time periods specified below:

[12.8 unchanged.]

12.8.3 Criteria for Determining Season of Competition.

12.8.3.1 Minimum Amount of Competition. Any competition, regardless of time, during a season in an intercollegiate sport shall be counted as a season of competition in that sport, except as provided in Bylaws 12.8.3.1.1, 12.8.3.1.2, 12.8.3.1.4, and 12.8.3.1.5 and 12.8.3.1.6. This provision is applicable to intercollegiate athletics competition conducted by a two-year or four-year collegiate institution at the varsity or subvarsity level.

[12.8.3.1.1 through 12.8.3.1.5 unchanged.]

12.8.3.1.6 Exception -- Football. In football, a student-athlete may compete in up to four contests in a season without using a season of competition.

[12.8.3.2 through 12.8.3.7 unchanged.]

[12.8.4 through 12.8.6 unchanged.]

Has no caveats about reasons. Only that they can compete in up to four contests without using a season.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Well lets go straight to the source: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...otball-offer-more-participation-opportunities

From that article


Seems pretty clear to me that any athlete can participate in up to four games without using a season of competition,(Which means redshirt year) There are no caveats in that statement.

Here is the actual change: https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=101282


Has no caveats about reasons. Only that they can compete in up to four contests without using a season.

I repeat, I HOPE you are correct, but I just don't trust the NCAA. Do you?

 

[Gold1]

I repeat, I HOPE you are correct, but I just don't trust the NCAA. Do you?

Supersize, the rule is the player can play in any 4 Games! That is the rule

 

[RonJohn]

I repeat, I HOPE you are correct, but I just don't trust the NCAA. Do you?

They do some crazy things. However, reading the actual text of the rules change, it doesn't leave any room to negotiate. The rule says "In football, a student-athlete may compete in up to four contests in a season without using a season of competition.". I don't see any way that the NCAA can interpret that rule to say that if someone played in three games for a reason other than injury that it still counts as a season of competition.

The rationale given on the rules change page is:

Under current legislation, a student-athlete who participates in one play of one contest uses a season of competition. This proposal would enhance student-athlete well-being by permitting a student-athlete, in football, to participate in up to four games without using a season of competition. The current rule often places coaches in a difficult position to decide whether to play a student-athlete in a limited amount of competition or to preserve the student-athlete's season of eligibility. The opportunity to play in a small number of games will ease this decision for coaches and help the student-athlete's development and transition to the college game. Additional flexibility with substitutes may allow starters and more experienced student-athletes additional rest and/or to feel less pressure to play through injuries. The opportunity to play will help student-athletes who might otherwise "redshirt" to remain engaged with the team and may reduce the number of transfers that occur annually in football. Another potential benefit of this legislation is the opportunity for younger student-athletes to participate in bowl games, which are often as much about preparing for the following season as completing the current season. This legislation is supported by the AFCA Board of Trustees. Finally, this proposal may reduce administrative burden by eliminating the need to process a medical hardship request if a student-athlete is injured after limited participation.

The NCAA itself is saying that this rule change will help the student-athlete's development and transition to the college game. They also say that it will allow younger SAs an opportunity to play in bowl games. I don't know how much clearer they could be that this rule isn't solely for injuries. They did use the ability to allow more experienced athletes to have less pressure to play through injuries, but that was only one of the arguments used to get this rule passed.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

They do some crazy things. However, reading the actual text of the rules change, it doesn't leave any room to negotiate. The rule says "In football, a student-athlete may compete in up to four contests in a season without using a season of competition.". I don't see any way that the NCAA can interpret that rule to say that if someone played in three games for a reason other than injury that it still counts as a season of competition.

The rationale given on the rules change page is:


The NCAA itself is saying that this rule change will help the student-athlete's development and transition to the college game. They also say that it will allow younger SAs an opportunity to play in bowl games. I don't know how much clearer they could be that this rule isn't solely for injuries. They did use the ability to allow more experienced athletes to have less pressure to play through injuries, but that was only one of the arguments used to get this rule passed.

I still don't trust them. lol

 

[Skeptic]

You MIGHT be correct, and I HOPE that you are, but you know how the NCAA operates, and when a situation arises, they do whatever they damn well please, so I think we had better be careful in giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
As far as the quote I posted, it can actually mean one of two things:
1) "....if, for example, injuries (TO THEM) or other factors result in them (the redshirted players) competing in a small number of games..."
2) "....if, for example, injuries (TO THE STARTERS OR BACKUPS) or other factors result in them (the redshirted players) competing in a small number of games..."
Reading again through the complete statement referenced in the Tweet that was originally posted in this thread, it would SEEM that number 2 MIGHT be what is meant, but again, I wouldn't trust the NCAA to follow through with that.

Are you implying the NCAA is a bunch of Humpty Dumptys?
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Are you implying the NCAA is a bunch of Humpty Dumptys?
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

I'm not IMPLYING anything. I am STATING that the NCAA is a bunch of duplicitous frauds.

 

[AE 87]

I still don't want to admit I was wrong. lol

Fixed it for you

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Fixed it for you

I'll get back to you when the NCAA screws the first school who redshirts a kid because of insufficient "other factors". It WILL happen.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Supersize, the rule is the player can play in any 4 Games! That is the rule

Like I have said before, if you trust the NCAA, so be it, but I don't.

 

[awbuzz]

Are you implying the NCAA is a bunch of Humpty Dumptys?
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Depends what your definition of is is.

 

[Skeptic]

I'm not IMPLYING anything. I am STATING that the NCAA is a bunch of duplicitous frauds.

Well, okay, then. As long as you are properly deferential. I will pass on your apology as to the first but you still might be on the hook for that last one.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I wonder if a player who started for 4 years could play an additional 4 games if he wanted to? Other players are eligible for 4 1/3 years if they arrange the years differently.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

I wonder if a player who started for 4 years could play an additional 4 games if he wanted to? Other players are eligible for 4 1/3 years if they arrange the years differently.

That is interesting. Take his redshirt year his last year.

 

[Josh H]

That is interesting. Take his redshirt year his last year.

I doubt any program would hold a scholarship for a player like that.

 

[AE 87]

I wonder if a player who started for 4 years could play an additional 4 games if he wanted to? Other players are eligible for 4 1/3 years if they arrange the years differently.

That is interesting. Take his redshirt year his last year.

So let's say a four-year starter gets injured near the end of his Senior year. For our system, he was great, but pro-teams have questions about his ability at the next level. Besides, he won't be available to participate in either the combine or GT's senior day or to try-out for the pro-teams in the Spring because of his injury.

So, we keep him on scholarship so that he can rehab and recover and then play in the last few games and bowl game the next year.