Home General
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

Proposed new rules

JAYER4JAYER4 Posts: 36 ✭✭✭ Junior

There are two interesting, new proposed rules that are to be voted on by the NCAA soon that are presumed to pass from what I've read (take that for what it's worth).

1.) Red-shirt players will be eligible to play in 4, yes FOUR, games and still red-shirt. This would be huge for those players who develop and catch on late in the season. Also, if it goes into effect immediately, Zamir may could play when it matters and still red-shirt.

2.) Players receive a one-time pass to transfer to another school without having to sit out a year. Again, if this passes and goes into effect immediately, guess who Auburn has a chance of facing week 1 in Mercedes Benz... Jacob Eason.

Just some thoughts, would be interesting to say the least.

«134

Comments

  • donmdonm Posts: 10,241 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @JAYER4 said:
    There are two interesting, new proposed rules that are to be voted on by the NCAA soon that are presumed to pass from what I've read (take that for what it's worth).

    1.) Red-shirt players will be eligible to play in 4, yes FOUR, games and still red-shirt. This would be huge for those players who develop and catch on late in the season. Also, if it goes into effect immediately, Zamir may could play when it matters and still red-shirt.

    2.) Players receive a one-time pass to transfer to another school without having to sit out a year. Again, if this passes and goes into effect immediately, guess who Auburn has a chance of facing week 1 in Mercedes Benz... Jacob Eason.

    Just some thoughts, would be interesting to say the least.

    Very interesting and, in some ways, game changing.

  • pgjacksonpgjackson Posts: 17,646 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited January 2018

    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

  • oldon42oldon42 Posts: 2,145 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I think the #1 rule would be better if it limited the number of plays instead of the number of games. For example 50 plays in a regular season. This would allow players to get some playing time during mop up time without losing a years eligibility.

  • josh31533josh31533 Posts: 186 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @pgjackson said:
    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

    Good idea.

  • josh31533josh31533 Posts: 186 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @dradcliff said:
    If a kid can transfer anytime, when does the recruiting end. Schools would be going after other schools players all the time.
    Not to mention if a kid gets mad he may decide to transfer instead of working through the situation.

    Not a good idea.

    Not a fan of this one either.

  • josh31533josh31533 Posts: 186 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @oldon42 said:
    I think the #1 rule would be better if it limited the number of plays instead of the number of games. For example 50 plays in a regular season. This would allow players to get some playing time during mop up time without losing a years eligibility.

    I think this one could get dicey, I know a head coach would have someone on top of the prospective play count, but in the heat of the moment that someone could lose track of the play count and get some sort of violation and cost the kid or school down the road.

  • corai3corai3 Posts: 667 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @JAYER4 said:
    There are two interesting, new proposed rules that are to be voted on by the NCAA soon that are presumed to pass from what I've read (take that for what it's worth).

    1.) Red-shirt players will be eligible to play in 4, yes FOUR, games and still red-shirt. This would be huge for those players who develop and catch on late in the season. Also, if it goes into effect immediately, Zamir may could play when it matters and still red-shirt.

    2.) Players receive a one-time pass to transfer to another school without having to sit out a year. Again, if this passes and goes into effect immediately, guess who Auburn has a chance of facing week 1 in Mercedes Benz... Jacob Eason.

    Just some thoughts, would be interesting to say the least.

    Isn't Browning coming back for Washington? He's a pretty good QB. Also I like the Redshirt limited to a number of plays equal to around 1 games worth. Say like 100 snaps.

  • PlayHurtPlayHurt Posts: 999 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @DawgsofWar said:
    I would like for all penalties, including missed ones to be reviewed.

    This and for the officials to be PUBLICLY reprimanded just like players are when they make a penalty. There needs to be a new game-stat of missed/wrong/overturned calls by the officials. Then, the truly good officials can be rewarded with the bowl/playoff games.

  • RedDawgRedDawg Posts: 952 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    What is interesting about these is they both go hand in hand. Players tend to want to transfer because they dont get any playing time (which in their minds means they dont get a chance to prove they can beat out others for the starting spot). Many players get offended when they get sat and red shirted and then look to transfer. Maybe the 4 games thing helps counteract the ease of transferring??

    But I am most concerned about Rule #2; Making it easier for kids to transfer would def add some dynamics that I'm certain most coaches don't want to deal with. Kids may commit without thinking more about it because they know they can just leave if they don't like it. Kids may not try to bond as much with their teammates because they are still unsure if they want to even be there. Recruiting becomes a nightmare, as if it wasnt already. And it makes the scholarship circus that much harder to manage. I wouldn't want to aid any disgruntled behavior, they need to learn to fight for the starting spot and try hard, as well as learn to get along and become teammates, not quit after a year and go somewhere else.

    If they really want to transfer then they sit out a year. its not the end of the world for them...THEY STILL GET COLLEGE PAID FOR for heavens sake.

    I think an alternative or additional condition to the not having to sit out a year, is if they go 2 full years at a school and are still not starting. So if they finish their sophomore year and still haven't started, then they can transfer and start immediately. But they should have to sit out if they try to transfer after their first year in college.

  • corai3corai3 Posts: 667 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @RedDawg said:
    What is interesting about these is they both go hand in hand. Players tend to want to transfer because they dont get any playing time (which in their minds means they dont get a chance to prove they can beat out others for the starting spot). Many players get offended when they get sat and red shirted and then look to transfer. Maybe the 4 games thing helps counteract the ease of transferring??

    But I am most concerned about Rule #2; Making it easier for kids to transfer would def add some dynamics that I'm certain most coaches don't want to deal with. Kids may commit without thinking more about it because they know they can just leave if they don't like it. Kids may not try to bond as much with their teammates because they are still unsure if they want to even be there. Recruiting becomes a nightmare, as if it wasnt already. And it makes the scholarship circus that much harder to manage. I wouldn't want to aid any disgruntled behavior, they need to learn to fight for the starting spot and try hard, as well as learn to get along and become teammates, not quit after a year and go somewhere else.

    If they really want to transfer then they sit out a year. its not the end of the world for them...THEY STILL GET COLLEGE PAID FOR for heavens sake.

    I think an alternative or additional condition to the not having to sit out a year, is if they go 2 full years at a school and are still not starting. So if they finish their sophomore year and still haven't started, then they can transfer and start immediately. But they should have to sit out if they try to transfer after their first year in college.

    I can't remember what site I saw it on, but there would be other other requirements such as being in good academic standing.

  • donmdonm Posts: 10,241 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @pgjackson said:
    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

    Why does the point of the red shirt have to change? All that is changing is the # of games that can be played. It used to be 20% of the games (2) and now it goes to 4. Don't see the problem with that. Seems to make things easier on coaches and more opportunities for players.

  • pgjacksonpgjackson Posts: 17,646 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited January 2018

    @donm said:

    @pgjackson said:
    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

    Why does the point of the red shirt have to change? All that is changing is the # of games that can be played. It used to be 20% of the games (2) and now it goes to 4. Don't see the problem with that. Seems to make things easier on coaches and more opportunities for players.

    I'm pretty sure RS can't play at all. One play burns the RS status.

    https://www.backingthepack.com/college-football-news/2017/6/30/15905786/ncaa-redshirt-rule-changes-college-football

  • JRT812JRT812 Posts: 4,697 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @pgjackson said:

    @donm said:

    @pgjackson said:
    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

    Why does the point of the red shirt have to change? All that is changing is the # of games that can be played. It used to be 20% of the games (2) and now it goes to 4. Don't see the problem with that. Seems to make things easier on coaches and more opportunities for players.

    I'm pretty sure RS can't play at all. One play burns the RS status.

    https://www.backingthepack.com/college-football-news/2017/6/30/15905786/ncaa-redshirt-rule-changes-college-football

    Wasn't there a kid you played last year for UGA one play and still got his RS?

    In response to the OP, I could see number 1 being abused and number two seems good in theory, but needs more boundaries.

  • Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 7,397 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @corai3 said:

    @JAYER4 said:
    There are two interesting, new proposed rules that are to be voted on by the NCAA soon that are presumed to pass from what I've read (take that for what it's worth).

    1.) Red-shirt players will be eligible to play in 4, yes FOUR, games and still red-shirt. This would be huge for those players who develop and catch on late in the season. Also, if it goes into effect immediately, Zamir may could play when it matters and still red-shirt.

    2.) Players receive a one-time pass to transfer to another school without having to sit out a year. Again, if this passes and goes into effect immediately, guess who Auburn has a chance of facing week 1 in Mercedes Benz... Jacob Eason.

    Just some thoughts, would be interesting to say the least.

    Isn't Browning coming back for Washington? He's a pretty good QB. Also I like the Redshirt limited to a number of plays equal to around 1 games worth. Say like 100 snaps.

    You must be a Big 12 fan :D 30 is more reasonable in the SEC

  • SWARLES_BARKLEYSWARLES_BARKLEY Posts: 308 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    I get the issues #2 causes, but if coaches can leave in the night (or worse, the day after the kid signs his LOI) for another school, then we have to let players do the same.

    The drawbacks are inconveniences. Byproducts we have to get over that result from doing the right thing. Ethics are square one, and from there we can finagle with smaller steps to ensure recruiting between programs doesn’t become a thing.

  • SWARLES_BARKLEYSWARLES_BARKLEY Posts: 308 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    Plus, I think folks overestimate how eager players are to transfer. The vast majority of these guys build relationships and will not be looking to jump ship that soon.

  • DamnYankeeDawgDamnYankeeDawg Posts: 1,139 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited January 2018

    NCAA is trying to do their best with some competing interests. Fans love seeing more games. The season gets longer and longer. But the college football season wasn’t designed to go that long. Just like basketball and baseball when compared to the pro game.
    Something needs to be done with the schedule. Dawgs played 15 games this year. Almost an NFL schedule. More than a handful of teams played 14 games. And we have many people advocating for a longer season by going to an 8 or 16 team playoff. So add 2 more games for a handful of teams.

    If the NCAA doesn’t do anything about the schedule, the redshirt rule could help out with all the additional games many schools seem to be playing.
    I would prefer the number of games to be 3 for a RS to keep status. 2 games during the regular season at the team’s discretion and the other game being the bowl game.
    I believe most Power 5 teams would play these guys against the cupcakes during the season to get the RS players some game experience and give the regulars a chance to rest during the season.

  • Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 7,397 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @JRT812 said:

    @pgjackson said:

    @donm said:

    @pgjackson said:
    I'm OK with #2. Do not like #1. What's the point of RS if you can start in 1/3 of the season? I'd modify it to one game, not starting. Meaning if you RS and a someone gets injured in a game and you are a necessary backup, you can play in that one game. After that, the team has to plan around the injury without you.

    Why does the point of the red shirt have to change? All that is changing is the # of games that can be played. It used to be 20% of the games (2) and now it goes to 4. Don't see the problem with that. Seems to make things easier on coaches and more opportunities for players.

    I'm pretty sure RS can't play at all. One play burns the RS status.

    https://www.backingthepack.com/college-football-news/2017/6/30/15905786/ncaa-redshirt-rule-changes-college-football

    Wasn't there a kid you played last year for UGA one play and still got his RS?

    In response to the OP, I could see number 1 being abused and number two seems good in theory, but needs more boundaries.

    It was Kindley and he got a waiver due to being injured.

Sign In or Register to comment.