Like many of you, I read with great interest the "insider's" article about the meeting with Riley and his staff, particularly the part about the freshman who doesn't want to be redshirted.
My personal opinion is that redshirting should be phased out, that as a concept, it is losing its value.
Before I continue, let me state that in certain cases -- undersized or very raw players -- the redshirt option is still a nice tool to have. But in general, I believe it should be used less and less.
We live in such an instant-everything world. These young people coming up today are not used to waiting. Not for information, not for food, not for access to TV shows and movies, not anything. The idea of not competing for a year, for players who have been stars their whole lives, is a foreign concept that carries with it a stigma. To a 17 or 18 year old, "a year" might as well be 10.
Furthermore, the five-year clock is less and less relevant as more and more skill position players declare for the NFL draft after their junior seasons. In addition, more and more transfers are taking place than ever before, often down to the lower levels of NCAA (or NAIA) because kids know if they're good enough, the NFL will find them.
From our perspective, NOT redshirting a kid is a good thing because they immediately lose that year of eligibility, making transferring more difficult.
And as Banker said, "we need to win now."
It's a different time. Gone are the days when our freshmen played on the freshman team, redshirted the next year then came into the fray. It's a faster churn now. The cycle has been condensed. The time (and need) for development has been reduced. More and more players are coming in having played at high-level programs, probably having lifted and drank lots of mile loaded with hormones and steroids (haha). But seriously, more are ready now than when the redshirting concept was born.
Lastly, I think by playing, even a small role, a player will be more emotionally invested in the program. Even if he gets in and makes a play in the final 2 minutes of a blowout over a subdivision team.
My thesis is, use redshirting sparingly. Use it on the undersized lineman or the scrawny DE or LB who just doesn't have the body type. For all the rest, keep them active and sort it all out later. Again, the cycle is faster, the churn is more pronounced than ever.
For the running backs, I wouldn't redshirt any of them. Devine? Playing. Stevenson? Playing. Put 'em on special teams.
I work with a lot of young people in my current job, and patience is not always a virtue for them. They expect things now, more than ever. I'm not saying give them a spot on the depth chart but I am saying stop worrying about whether to redshirt someone and save that precious 5th year. Play em. There's very little downside to "burning a shirt." There's a new recruiting class coming in right around the corner.
My personal opinion is that redshirting should be phased out, that as a concept, it is losing its value.
Before I continue, let me state that in certain cases -- undersized or very raw players -- the redshirt option is still a nice tool to have. But in general, I believe it should be used less and less.
We live in such an instant-everything world. These young people coming up today are not used to waiting. Not for information, not for food, not for access to TV shows and movies, not anything. The idea of not competing for a year, for players who have been stars their whole lives, is a foreign concept that carries with it a stigma. To a 17 or 18 year old, "a year" might as well be 10.
Furthermore, the five-year clock is less and less relevant as more and more skill position players declare for the NFL draft after their junior seasons. In addition, more and more transfers are taking place than ever before, often down to the lower levels of NCAA (or NAIA) because kids know if they're good enough, the NFL will find them.
From our perspective, NOT redshirting a kid is a good thing because they immediately lose that year of eligibility, making transferring more difficult.
And as Banker said, "we need to win now."
It's a different time. Gone are the days when our freshmen played on the freshman team, redshirted the next year then came into the fray. It's a faster churn now. The cycle has been condensed. The time (and need) for development has been reduced. More and more players are coming in having played at high-level programs, probably having lifted and drank lots of mile loaded with hormones and steroids (haha). But seriously, more are ready now than when the redshirting concept was born.
Lastly, I think by playing, even a small role, a player will be more emotionally invested in the program. Even if he gets in and makes a play in the final 2 minutes of a blowout over a subdivision team.
My thesis is, use redshirting sparingly. Use it on the undersized lineman or the scrawny DE or LB who just doesn't have the body type. For all the rest, keep them active and sort it all out later. Again, the cycle is faster, the churn is more pronounced than ever.
For the running backs, I wouldn't redshirt any of them. Devine? Playing. Stevenson? Playing. Put 'em on special teams.
I work with a lot of young people in my current job, and patience is not always a virtue for them. They expect things now, more than ever. I'm not saying give them a spot on the depth chart but I am saying stop worrying about whether to redshirt someone and save that precious 5th year. Play em. There's very little downside to "burning a shirt." There's a new recruiting class coming in right around the corner.
