Guy Thomas

[Tuco Salamanca]

Fair enough. I don't see how it would be much more of a hassle than not redshirting, and you'd get the benefit of the extra year for late bloomers. O-lineman especially could use the extra year of physical development in my mind.

The benefit is that you have all 85 scholarship players available. There is no worry of pulling a shirt late in the year or whatever. If a player hasn't contributed by year 4, the chances of him being a contributor year 5 is slim. If you recruit well, you should have recruited over that player by then. If you are depending on 5th year players with limited experience you have bigger issues than whether or not to redshirt players.

 

[oldjar07]

Why not redshirt guys who aren't physically or mentally ready to play their freshman year. If after their redshirt junior year (4th year of being on scholarship) they aren't in line to get any playing time as a senior, cut them loose then. Explain it all up front and no one should have much of a gripe. That way future contributors would get the advantage of the redshirt year, and non contributors are still gone after 4.

This makes the most sense to me. If they've been in the system a few years and you know they're never going to contribute, then you cut them. Not redshirting players who aren't ready yet is just as stupid because they could become studs by their junior or senior years and then you only get them as a 1 year starter when you could could have had them for 2.

 

[oldjar07]

The benefit is that you have all 85 scholarship players available. There is no worry of pulling a shirt late in the year or whatever. If a player hasn't contributed by year 4, the chances of him being a contributor year 5 is slim. If you recruit well, you should have recruited over that player by then. If you are depending on 5th year players with limited experience you have bigger issues than whether or not to redshirt players.

You actually just described why redshirting does make sense. If a guy has been in the program for 4 years and isn't contributing, you drop him.

Let's go through an example of why redshirting works. You recruit a guy who has a lot of talent, but hasn't played good competition in high school so he comes in overwhelmed his freshman year. His sophomore year he improves and is on the 2 deep. His third year he earns a starting spot. His 4th year breaks out and becomes all conference player. Now since you didn't red shirt him his freshman year, you only get 1 year of all conference play from him when you could have had 2 years with a red shirt year. The kid doesn't have to be an all star player either. With a red shirt year, a kid could contribute 1 more year as a starter or 1 more year as a solid backup player.

If a kid isn't contributing by his junior or senior years and isn't improving, you would cut him. Let's say 1 year you're really killing it on the recruiting trail and you don't want to stop momentum. You could even cut the reaches from the previous classes who are red shirt freshman or sophomores.

Now this requires coaches to make tough decisions, but hey, that's why they get paid millions a year.

 

[WHCSC]

This makes the most sense to me. If they've been in the system a few years and you know they're never going to contribute, then you cut them. Not redshirting players who aren't ready yet is just as stupid because they could become studs by their junior or senior years and then you only get them as a 1 year starter when you could could have had them for 2.

Players are on 4 year scholarships. You can't "cut" or "drop" them .

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Players are on 4 year scholarships. You can't "cut" or "drop" them .

It doesn't matter. Even with rules that can be circumvented, Nebraska is not going to cut every non contributor. Some go away on their own, but not all. So while the idea of cutting them is great, it's not reality.

The biggest point in my theory is the numbers. If you can cycle a minimum of 125 players every 5 years rather than 100, that is better. Secondly, there is no reason to keep an average or below average player on the bench for a 5th year when, if you free up the scholarship, you give yourself a chance of upgrading the talent. We have at least 2 upperclassmen on the DLine that have been recruited over. Those 2 dudes will never see the field. If Khalil Davis and Carlos Davis continue at their current rate of improvement they won't play 4 years of football at Nebraska. So what did you gain, as a program, by redshirting them?

 

[WHCSC]

It doesn't matter. Even with rules that can be circumvented, Nebraska is not going to cut every non contributor. Some go away on their own, but not all. So while the idea of cutting them is great, it's not reality.

The biggest point in my theory is the numbers. If you can cycle a minimum of 125 players every 5 years rather than 100, that is better. Secondly, there is no reason to keep an average or below average player on the bench for a 5th year when, if you free up the scholarship, you give yourself a chance of upgrading the talent. We have at least 2 upperclassmen on the DLine that have been recruited over. Those 2 dudes will never see the field. If Khalil Davis and Carlos Davis continue at their current rate of improvement they won't play 4 years of football at Nebraska. So what did you gain, as a program, by redshirting them?

Agree completely. Got to find a way to convince some to move on.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

This makes the most sense to me. If they've been in the system a few years and you know they're never going to contribute, then you cut them. Not redshirting players who aren't ready yet is just as stupid because they could become studs by their junior or senior years and then you only get them as a 1 year starter when you could could have had them for 2.

How do you figure? If a player isn't ready to play his freshman year, he isn't going to play. Same as if he redshirted. Redshirt players don't have a different regiment, or different training. They do the same thing as all the other players. If the player uses the freshman year to get better, they will play their sophomore year. If they don't they won't. If it is taking a player 3 years to get to the point they are playing significant minutes, so they can play 2 years, that is a recruiting miss. Redshirting in hopes of developing is an antiquated method in my opinion.