Coaches association is going to NCAA with proposalthat states a player could play in as many as 4 games and still keep their redshirt.

I have no issue with that.

I think a garbage time policy for redshirts would be fine too. If the current point deficit during a game was say, 24 points or greater, then the playing time would have nothing to do with eligibility. It would give the true fish an in game experience without having truly contribute during the season.

This has been stated before, but what you are saying is be in school for 5 years, play without sitting out for 5 years. Schools already struggle with coming up with scholarships and on top of that NCAA would have to extend scholarship numbers. Not going to happen.

Bone6 said:

---

I have no issue with that.

I think a garbage time policy for redshirts would be fine too. If the current point deficit during a game was say, 24 points or greater, then the playing time would have nothing to do with eligibility. It would give the true fish an in game experience without having truly contribute during the season.

---

This would incentive scheduling really ****ty teams so you can take advantage of this and would also lead to less parity over time.

You are still on scholarship even if you redshirt. Seeing as how this already happens, I don't understand how more scholarships are needed.

Redshirts will not go away no matter what. It would then go to 6 years with a redshirt, meaning really dishing out scholarships to some kids for 6 years instead of 5. Kids get hurt, some sit out due to gaining size, etc. It really doesn't make sense to say 5 for 5, for redshirts it would truely be 6 for 5. Many schools do not have the money to dish that out.

Quote:

---

This would incentive scheduling really ****ty teams so you can take advantage of this and would also lead to less parity over time.

---

Have you not been following college football over the past 25 years??? Major programs have been scheduling cream puff non conference teams for a long time. The incentive is already strongly there.

A strong incentive for soft non conference schedules is there regardless of whether a few true fish were to get a few reps in garbage time. The way you fix that is by rewarding strength of schedule in rankings.

As for parity, sure, Ohio State and Alabama would get to "reload" a bit more easily if their rs-fr have had a few reps in clean up time under the big lights, but it would be very incremental.

Give all players 5 years to play 4. RS' s not needed.

yeshellyes said:

---

Give all players 5 years to play 4. RS' s not needed.

---

Maybe I am misunderstanding something but that is what you get right now. Everyone Can Redshirt and get 5 years to play 4. This rule is saying everyone is getting 5 years to play 4 years plus 4 games.

I don't think it's automatic? If not it should be.

Yes, it's automatic.

Another way for Alabama to stockpile.

hunter2012 said:

---

Gives our redshirt QBs playing time for when the starter inevitably transfers.

---

eot

If A&M ever blew out an opponent more than once a year or so players could get some experience in garbage time. Bama tells the players on their super deep roster they're going to have to wait their turn under this program they can get more experience earlier..

is there any reason to be against this?

Bone6 said:

---

Quote:

---

This would incentive scheduling really ****ty teams so you can take advantage of this and would also lead to less parity over time.

---

Have you not been following college football over the past 25 years??? Major programs have been scheduling cream puff non conference teams for a long time. The incentive is already strongly there.

A strong incentive for soft non conference schedules is there regardless of whether a few true fish were to get a few reps in garbage time. The way you fix that is by rewarding strength of schedule in rankings.

As for parity, sure, Ohio State and Alabama would get to "reload" a bit more easily if their rs-fr have had a few reps in clean up time under the big lights, but it would be very incremental.

---

So just because most power 5 teams schedule 2-3 cream puffs a year you want to add incentive to make it 4? This new playoff structure has finally started to alter the incentives and expanding to 8-16 teams would even further change incentives on scheduling creampuffs. Let's not add additional incentive to run up the score or schedule creampuffs...

Don't try and tack on any more to this. This proposal is a good idea and it's about time the NCAA make a change that favors these kids careers in some way.

Just give them 5 to play 5. No more redshirting- medical or regular. Cut the bs. It's not like guys get a much lighter work load in practice their redshirt season anyway. What's the point?

"Give all players five years to play four. No! Here are two reasons why: (1) would result in too much "player management" and (2) Additional expense to 12M (donors) would be more and could be much more. Many schools are already barely scraping by on revenue/costs. (Before five to play four, how about more scholarships for, for instance, baseball. Have full-ride scholarships and preferred walk-on's.)

It's already this way.

Aston04 said:

---

Just give them 5 to play 5. No more redshirting- medical or regular. Cut the bs. It's not like guys get a much lighter work load in practice their redshirt season anyway. What's the point?

---

Redshirting is a relic. Dumb!

Give everyone 4 years to play 4. If you graduate at the end of 4, you get a 5th year.

I like the idea of being able to play 4 games as a fish without losing a year of eligibility. They gain valuable experience without being harmed. My question is, is it 4 games, 16 quarters, 240 minutes etc If it's any of the later, it could be manipulated big time.

What's wrong with how it is now?