Change to Redshirt Rules

[El Paso Eagle]

Per Football Scoop 

 

A new rule regarding redshirts that a lot of college coaches were advocates for has passed by a vote from the Division I Council.

Division I athletes who are designated redshirts can now participate in up to four games in a season without using a season of competition.

The new rule change will be effective for the 2018-19 football season.

[THOR]

interesting...is this so they can get some game experience to see what they have and if they need to be redshirted?

[greenminer]

Adopted by both FBS and FCS.

NOT retroactive.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-football-offer-more-participation-opportunities

[greenminer]

Other changes...
 

 

[TreeFiddy]

New redshirt rule will help scenarios where a kid has to come in and play at the end of the season when the starter gets hurt.  It will also allow coaches to play freshmen in the bowl game without burning a year of eligibility (which has been something coaches have wanted for a long time).  This should push a lot more kids to a redshirt year.

[Stix]

1 hour ago, TreeFiddy said:

New redshirt rule will help scenarios where a kid has to come in and play at the end of the season when the starter gets hurt.

So, is it called the "Derek Thompson" rule?

[UNTexas]

Good change

[NorthTexan95]

I think four games is too many but whatever.  I just hope it is strictly enforced.  

[NorthTexan95]

The transfer rule is really scary.  Football may start looking like basketball with guys transferring every season. 

[Arkstfan]

5 hours ago, NorthTexan95 said:

I think four games is too many but whatever.  I just hope it is strictly enforced.  

Everyone can play 12. At least 60% of schools will play 13 games. At least 15% will play 14.

Going to 4 makes sense. The old rule was 3 and came from when 11 was the cap and around 36% played 12 games and less than 6% played 13

It gets the ratio closer to what it was when the old rule was adopted.

As to enforcement.

After every game or match, the schools send a participation report to the NCAA. Off the top of my head I can only think of two cases of bad participation reports.

One was Tulsa claiming they sent more female track participants to meets than they actually had. Since Tulsa was at the minimum number of sports for FBS the NCAA in its sanction report said that they could have reclassified Tulsa football FCS or even drop them to Division II. Instead because they failed to meet the sport sponsorship requirement for that year they declared them ineligible for post-season in all sports.

The other case was from the NAIA when someone noticed that scrubs who rarely got into games at home suddenly became really good players during road games for Arkansas-Pine Bluff. They were actually using players out of eligibility on the road and claiming they were the scrub players. Some of the older folks may remember when Dallas Carter had the big crime spree by players that a college coach asked the judge for leniency and promised that he'd keep them on the straight and narrow got chewed out in open court by the judge and cited his attitude as part of the reason the players thought they could do anything without any repercussions. That was UAPB's Archie "Gunslinger" Cooley. UAPB got  a two year death penalty in football.

Normally both schools in any game is tracking participation so if UTSA played Joe Freshman and didn't report it when they play UNT, someone would see the discrepancy.

[Arkstfan]

6 hours ago, NorthTexan95 said:

The transfer rule is really scary.  Football may start looking like basketball with guys transferring every season. 

What is scary is when a guy completes his degree and wants to grad transfer and the coach can block him from getting a scholarship at his new school. Mike Gundy had a list of 40 schools that a grad transfer couldn't go to. I can understand blocking an intra-conference transfer or a non-conference you are scheduled to play. Can't remember where it was but there was a school in the Northeast that wouldn't give a guy a release to get a scholarship at any Division I.

The coach can take a scholarship away if he needs to make roster space but players didn't have the ability to transfer without being blessed.

[oldguystudent]

12 hours ago, Stix said:

So, is it called the "Derek Thompson" rule?

Exactly the scenario I was thinking of! 

[TreeFiddy]

The old rule of 3 game involved injury situations and the game had to occur in the first part of the season. I haven’t seen any restriction associated with the new rule and now, hopefully, teams don’t have to fake an injury and request medical redshirt.

I could see where this change might increase the number of players that graduate with eligibility remaining since fewer players may be burning their first year of eligibility. 

ETA: correcting the autocorrect, plus add clarification below.

In the past, teams might play a freshman in a game or two, then they conveniently have a mysterious injury that keeps them out the remaining 10 games so they can apply for a redshirt.  This rule should eliminate those theatrics.

Edited June 14, 2018 by TreeFiddy

[NorthTexan95]

6 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

What is scary is when a guy completes his degree and wants to grad transfer and the coach can block him from getting a scholarship at his new school. Mike Gundy had a list of 40 schools that a grad transfer couldn't go to. I can understand blocking an intra-conference transfer or a non-conference you are scheduled to play. Can't remember where it was but there was a school in the Northeast that wouldn't give a guy a release to get a scholarship at any Division I.

The coach can take a scholarship away if he needs to make roster space but players didn't have the ability to transfer without being blessed.

I completely agree with you about coaches blocking kids from certain schools.   I do worry about kids being able to transfer to another school at his own whim.  I think this could quickly get out of hand and I bet within five years they are tweaking the rule in some fashion.

I do have one nitpick ... except for certain situations, scholarships are one year deals.  A coach doesn't have to take away a scholarship ... he just doesn't renew it.  I guess this does work against my point in that if schools are only committed to kids for one year then perhaps the student should only be committed to the school for one year.   

Hmmm ...  perhaps a more equitable answer would be that a scholarship acts like a contract.  If a school commits to a player for four years (which I believe only D1 schools can do) then the player can't transfer without permission.  If the school only offers a traditional scholarship for one year then the kid can transfer.  

[Arkstfan]

2 hours ago, TreeFiddy said:

The old rule of 3 game involved and Nauru situations and the game had to occur in the first part of the season. I haven’t seen any restriction associated with the new rule and now, hopefully, teams don’t have to fake an injury and request medical redshirtt.

I could see where this change might increase the number of players that graduate with eligibility remaining since fewer players may be burning their first year of eligibility. 

Every year there are guys who get hurt early in the season and might be cleared medically to play in the final third of the season or the bowl game if the coaches really wanted them back but instead can't get medical clearance.

I'm not sure that it isn't better to have that fiction take place because that guy ends up getting the chance to full heal and regain strength.

[Cr1028]

21 hours ago, Stix said:

So, is it called the "Derek Thompson" rule?

 

9 hours ago, oldguystudent said:

Exactly the scenario I was thinking of! 

That happened but in the end it didn’t matter because he redshirted the following season due to injury anyway so he would’ve lost both seasons regardless. You don’t get a medical redshirt at that time unless you can prove your first season redshirt was due to injury. But yes, if Derek Thompson had not been injured in 2010, this rule (had it been in effect at the time), would’ve given his eligibility for 2009 back.

[GMG24]

On 6/13/2018 at 1:38 PM, greenminer said:

Other changes...
 

 

This could be beginning of end for G5’s.. kid like Fine or FAU RB blow up for 2/3 years all of a sudden may decide to head to bigger program to compete... not a huge fan but I understand the reasoning behind it.  Coaches can go school to school with no penalty kids are told where they can’t transfer to and have to get permission to transfer 

[Arkstfan]

3 minutes ago, GMG24 said:

This could be beginning of end for G5’s.. kid like Fine or FAU RB blow up for 2/3 years all of a sudden may decide to head to bigger program to compete... not a huge fan but I understand the reasoning behind it.  Coaches can go school to school with no penalty kids are told where they can’t transfer to and have to get permission to transfer 

They still have to sit a year unless they are a graduate transfer

[GMG24]

51 minutes ago, Arkstfan said:

They still have to sit a year unless they are a graduate transfer

In Fines case... sit/RS since he hasn’t used it yet.

[greenminer]

1 hour ago, GMG24 said:

...kid like Fine or FAU RB blow up for 2/3 years all of a sudden may decide to head to bigger program to compete... 

This has been a reality, we'll just likely see the number of transfers increase as certain coaches can no longer block them.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The rules once were TOO restrictive ... now it almost is  "what rules"... ???   Colleges will recruit (likely illegally) other people great players.  This will help the elite teams greatly and hurt others other than getting some  players that are sitting on the bench and not happy about it..  ... 

The new red shirt rule is way too liberal in my opinion.... it does make some sense for those that need to play end the end of a season due to injuries but 4 games seems too many . College teams tend to huge in size unlike NFL teams so they should have available players. . 

Edited June 15, 2018 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66