Red Shirt Rule to change?

[El Paso Eagle]

This could be interesting. Basically, every Red Shirt could play up to 4 games under the push. Do teams start saving players for games later in the year (rest players when they play weaker teams)? 

Edited January 18, 2018 by El Paso Eagle

[Mean Green 93-98]

What's the reasoning behind the change?  To avoid teams fabricating injuries to get players "medical redshirts"?

[Monkeypox]

I think it has more to do with being able to reduce the number of/hurdles to medical redshirts in the first place. I think it will provide a lot more roster flexibility, both at the beginning AND end of a season. 

Say a guy's borderline... you THINK you want to redshirt him, but he's been playing lights out in fall practice. Now, maybe you give him 3-4 non-conference games and see if he's got enough to take the job. OR you give him most of the season to put on weight and learn the system, and then you give him a shot at the end of the year. 

But I still see it mostly as a fix for the medical redshirt issue. If Mason went down next year after a couple of games, we'd have to apply for a medical redshirt for him. With the potential change, we could just use it as his redshirt year, and it requires a lot less work/administration. It also allows you to lose a starter and replace them with a redshirt for a handful of games, then put that guy back on the shelf.

Just look at the Derek Thompson situation. We burned his redshirt for about 2 minutes of playing time in the last game of a 2-9 season. Under the new rule, we would have gotten an extra year out of him.

[El Paso Eagle]

From what I have read it seems (at least on the surface) that coaches near the end of the year who run into depth issues would not have the blow the redshirt of a player and also be able to add depth and hopefully reduce injuries. 

[BTG_Fan1]

2 minutes ago, Monkeypox said:

I think it has more to do with being able to reduce the number of/hurdles to medical redshirts in the first place. I think it will provide a lot more roster flexibility, both at the beginning AND end of a season. 

Say a guy's borderline... you THINK you want to redshirt him, but he's been playing lights out in fall practice. Now, maybe you give him 3-4 non-conference games and see if he's got enough to take the job. OR you give him most of the season to put on weight and learn the system, and then you give him a shot at the end of the year. 

But I still see it mostly as a fix for the medical redshirt issue. If Mason went down next year after a couple of games, we'd have to apply for a medical redshirt for him. With the potential change, we could just use it as his redshirt year, and it requires a lot less work/administration. It also allows you to lose a starter and replace them with a redshirt for a handful of games, then put that guy back on the shelf.

Just look at the Derek Thompson situation. We burned his redshirt for about 2 minutes of playing time in the last game of a 2-9 season. Under the new rule, we would have gotten an extra year out of him.

I read it a few days ago so Im not sure and will ask, but can current players be grandfathered into this? I thought it read that once it was approved (if it’s approved) that I would start with those players..

I know if the season has already been played then you can’t use it, such as if we tried it with someone like Howard, or Novil this past season.. 

[Cerebus]

I wonder if the conference will be the one who decides eligibility.  Haven't seen any discussion of that.  

[Mean Green 93-98]

2 hours ago, Monkeypox said:

Just look at the Derek Thompson situation. We burned his redshirt for about 2 minutes of playing time in the last game of a 2-9 season. Under the new rule, we would have gotten an extra year out of him.

Thanks for the post.  This particular part, however, is not correct.  He took a medical redshirt the following year.  If he would have been considered a redshirt in 2009, he would have been ineligible for either in 2010.

[Monkeypox]

4 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Thanks for the post.  This particular part, however, is not correct.  He took a medical redshirt the following year.  If he would have been considered a redshirt in 2009, he would have been ineligible for either in 2010.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the medical redshirt, but the point stands. At the time, we were burning his redshirt for 2 minutes of playing time. I think the argument about it lasted his entire career here.

To your point, the new rule is meant, from what I understand, to get rid of the medical redshirt filing altogether, while helping to solidify and guarantee the "5 to play 4" rule.

[Mean Green 93-98]

13 minutes ago, Monkeypox said:

To your point, the new rule is meant, from what I understand, to get rid of the medical redshirt filing altogether, while helping to solidify and guarantee the "5 to play 4" rule.

So the possibility of a 6th-year waiver will also be eliminated?  The way it's been, a player has only been eligible for a 6th-year if he received a medical hardship waiver in 2 years--a redshirt year automatically disqualified him.