Pulling redshirts in the middle of the season?

[MplsBison]

The redshirt is coming off this week of NDSU extremely talented true freshman running back that we stole from the IL schools, Sam Ojuri.


Many NDSU fans and even the NDSU media (http://areavoices.com/bisonmedia/?blog=60839) are bitching about the decision. We do have the top running back in FCS as our starter and two other talented soph. RB as well.



However, my opinion is staunchly in support of the move. You're at NDSU to play football, that's why you get a scholarship. If you can help our team win, then damnit get your butt in there!

He could just as well get hurt his senior year and miss that or a multitude of other things. Play them if you got them!


Furthermore, I want the NCAA to abolish redshirts altogether. But that's for a different thread.





Opinions, comments, rants? xrulesx

[JSUBison]

Yet Bohl didn't want to pull Mohler's redshirt last year.

I'm not a Bohl hater, but jesus, this crap is getting crazier and crazier.

[Big Al]

Personally, I like the old rule where Freshman weren't allowed to play. Make sure they can handle the student portion before they start the athletics.

[SteelCurtain]

Personally, I like the old rule where Freshman weren't allowed to play. Make sure they can handle the student portion before they start the athletics.

great post. The world according to mlpsbison is a fantasy land

[JMUNJ08]

I do like the idea of medical redshirts to give the kids a chance to play four full seasons as most will not move on to the next level.

However, freshman redshirts should be abolished. Schools stockpile talent and dominate for years (ala Florida, Texas, etc.). Imagine if those kids knew they couldn't play there cuz someone else is in front of them was going to waste 3 years of their eligibility and they went to FIU, FA&M, Texas State (examples) for the playing time to showcase their talent. Wouldn't that be a great thing for college football as a whole instead of watching the B(S)CS?

[MplsBison]

Personally, I like the old rule where Freshman weren't allowed to play. Make sure they can handle the student portion before they start the athletics.

I'm glad they got rid of that rule.

That's what the NCAA clearinghouse is for. If they can't hold a 2.0 GPA the first semester, then you know they can't handle it. Let them play the first season at least, if they pass the clearinghouse.


As a compromise, I would be for getting rid of "partial qualifiers". Either you qualify for DI academically or you go to DII, that's it.

[MplsBison]

I do like the idea of medical redshirts to give the kids a chance to play four full seasons as most will not move on to the next level.

However, freshman redshirts should be abolished. Schools stockpile talent and dominate for years (ala Florida, Texas, etc.). Imagine if those kids knew they couldn't play there cuz someone else is in front of them was going to waste 3 years of their eligibility and they went to FIU, FA&M, Texas State (examples) for the playing time to showcase their talent. Wouldn't that be a great thing for college football as a whole instead of watching the B(S)CS?

Definitely get rid of freshman redshirts. Let the freshmen play 5 seasons if they are good enough to see the field as true freshmen!

[DFW HOYA]

No redshirts in the PL. Four years, get a degree, and move on.

[Big Al]

As a compromise, I would be for getting rid of "partial qualifiers". Either you qualify for DI academically or you go to DII, that's it.

That makes no sense to me -- either you qualify for college, or you don't. There shouldn't be any difference in academic standards between the NCAA divisions.

PS - 5 years?!

[onbison09]

HEY GENIUS, RUNNING BACK ISN'T OUR PROBLEM. WE HAVE THE LEADING RUSHER IN THE FRICKING COUNTRY!

Unless there's injury news we don't know about this makes no sense at all. Our odds to making the playoffs are probably about 100:1 or more. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IPT3VU9d1YM/SWf-yMt7puI/AAAAAAAAABc/I2PQnuWJCaU/s400/Cookie_Monster_What_The_Hell_Is_This_Crap.jpg

[Thumper 76]

However, freshman redshirts should be abolished. Schools stockpile talent and dominate for years (ala Florida, Texas, etc.). Imagine if those kids knew they couldn't play there cuz someone else is in front of them was going to waste 3 years of their eligibility and they went to FIU, FA&M, Texas State (examples) for the playing time to showcase their talent. Wouldn't that be a great thing for college football as a whole instead of watching the B(S)CS?

In getting rid of redshirts in order to have what you would like to see as a more "level" playing field you sacrafice a lot of things that the majority of these student athletes need. I realize a lot of them have scholarships and such, but I don't know if you realize just how important that redshirt year is to most kids. First off, I would say that 95-98% of all incoming freshman are not physically ready to play right away. Point blank. An 18 y.o. going against 22-23 years olds who have been on a college lifting program for that long? For most of them it won't turn out pretty, hence why they are on the "scout" teams for practice. They get to learn just what level they are on, while the starting teams get to see some looks without the punishment of going againts a starter. Secondly, the change from being a hs athlete to being a collegiate athlete is MASSIVE. Most regular students struggle with the transition, let alone having basically a fulltime job that is more demanding than any job a college kid can get. This makes the redshirt year a huge thing for them to get aclimated, and helps them with academics. I don't know about you guys, but while yes they were brought in to play football, make no mistake these kids aren't in college for football, they are there to get a degree. True some are there for the football and thats it, but they are the ones you hear about washing out cause of grade troubles.

Nevermind the fact that the whole argument of these kids not going there because all of a sudden oh no I don't have a redshirt so I should go where I can play theory doesn't pan out. Why you ask? Well that would be because right now 99% of your kids are going to be there for five years. So if they go to Florida or where ever where they are stacked in front of them, well they still aren't going to play till their last year, because when you take that year away, you take it from everyone, therefore all your doing is limiting the kids time to play college football. You don't make it any harder to play anywhere. With or without the redshirt year they will still have a bunch of guys in front of them if they go to a huge school. Hence why we see things leveling out somewhat as they are now. Why has the CAA been able to take down all these FBS schools? Because FCS schools are getting better athletes now because they look at other schools who say well we can give you a walk on and then you'll get a scholly the year after and prolly play your junior/senior year. Then they see the lower tier FBS schools and say well they dont play for jack, and at FCS hell I'll play a lot. Hence you get a solid group of athletes in the starting positions. Now will the FCS teams ever be as deep? No.

But I'm wandering. Losing the redshirt year is just a BS fan oriented selfish idea that will do nothing but hurt the student athlete. I'm sorry people but I don't know if you noticed but the student is before the athlete. People outside of sports bitch enough about these kids who bust their asses on the field and the classroom enough saying they focus too much on the athlete part. Do you really think that taking away the redshirt year will help them, at all? NO.

Ok I'm done now. xsplatx

[UNI Pike]

Seems a bit strange to yank a red shirt at this point in the season barring a glaring need based off of an injury, suspension, etc. It's not like Bohl is going to push Paschall down the depth chart.

Bohl is either rolling to dice to find a way to win out, or knows something the rest of us don't about the team's personnel. Honestly, you would think that he would be more worried about a QB or DB slot.

[JMUNJ08]

I didn't know I would get a book back as a response but I do agree as well. The problem is that the "student" part isn't taken as seriously unless you go to a school for its academics (harvard, georgetown, uva, etc.)

A lot of kids aren't ready and you're right. The same arguement can be made for basketball though and they play right away (how many 6'10" guys do you see who weigh 175 coming out of HS?????) It isn't as physically demanding you may say but the kid is still CLEARLY not ready to play at that level.

To agree with you then, leave eligibility at 4 years (most stay 5 anyways do to their demanding schedules) but make them ineligible as freshman. I know I'm flip flopping but the system should be tweaked.

[MplsBison]

That makes no sense to me -- either you qualify for college, or you don't. There shouldn't be any difference in academic standards between the NCAA divisions.

PS - 5 years?!

No, I think to play sports there should be a minimum NCAA standard. Otherwise, a school could just admit anyone they wanted and use "special considerations" as an excuse to let them in at the admissions office.


I don't really care if the divisions are the same or not, but currently DII standards are lower than DI standards (hence the transition period for moving from DII to DI).


But I don't agree with letting a kid partially qualify for DI, then proving he can maintain grades. If you don't get it done in high school, you should have to go DII, then transfer up if you feel that is your best option.



And there is nothing magical about 4 years. Many regular students don't even graduate in 4 years anymore.

It's just another historical tradition that has lost its context. Get rid of it.

[MplsBison]

In getting rid of redshirts in order to have what you would like to see as a more "level" playing field you sacrafice a lot of things that the majority of these student athletes need. I realize a lot of them have scholarships and such, but I don't know if you realize just how important that redshirt year is to most kids. First off, I would say that 95-98% of all incoming freshman are not physically ready to play right away. Point blank. An 18 y.o. going against 22-23 years olds who have been on a college lifting program for that long? For most of them it won't turn out pretty, hence why they are on the "scout" teams for practice. They get to learn just what level they are on, while the starting teams get to see some looks without the punishment of going againts a starter. Secondly, the change from being a hs athlete to being a collegiate athlete is MASSIVE. Most regular students struggle with the transition, let alone having basically a fulltime job that is more demanding than any job a college kid can get. This makes the redshirt year a huge thing for them to get aclimated, and helps them with academics. I don't know about you guys, but while yes they were brought in to play football, make no mistake these kids aren't in college for football, they are there to get a degree. True some are there for the football and thats it, but they are the ones you hear about washing out cause of grade troubles.

Nevermind the fact that the whole argument of these kids not going there because all of a sudden oh no I don't have a redshirt so I should go where I can play theory doesn't pan out. Why you ask? Well that would be because right now 99% of your kids are going to be there for five years. So if they go to Florida or where ever where they are stacked in front of them, well they still aren't going to play till their last year, because when you take that year away, you take it from everyone, therefore all your doing is limiting the kids time to play college football. You don't make it any harder to play anywhere. With or without the redshirt year they will still have a bunch of guys in front of them if they go to a huge school. Hence why we see things leveling out somewhat as they are now. Why has the CAA been able to take down all these FBS schools? Because FCS schools are getting better athletes now because they look at other schools who say well we can give you a walk on and then you'll get a scholly the year after and prolly play your junior/senior year. Then they see the lower tier FBS schools and say well they dont play for jack, and at FCS hell I'll play a lot. Hence you get a solid group of athletes in the starting positions. Now will the FCS teams ever be as deep? No.

But I'm wandering. Losing the redshirt year is just a BS fan oriented selfish idea that will do nothing but hurt the student athlete. I'm sorry people but I don't know if you noticed but the student is before the athlete. People outside of sports bitch enough about these kids who bust their asses on the field and the classroom enough saying they focus too much on the athlete part. Do you really think that taking away the redshirt year will help them, at all? NO.

Ok I'm done now. xsplatx


First of all, why are you acting as if it's every freshman's right to a redshirt year? BS it is. If that true freshman can help my team win, even if it's only on special teams, then his butt better be out there!


However, your argument is defeated if the NCAA gives athletes 5 years to play 5 seasons (instead of the current 5 to play 4). Then all football players are guaranteed their 5th year, regardless if they play or not that first year.

[Thumper 76]

Well if its his right depends on the coaching staff. If he came in and had the coaching staff told him if we pull your redshirt depends on you and we'll ask you, then yes it is his right, and yes there are teams that do that. Now will 99% of players turn them down when they get asked to help the team out by losing that year? No. And also how many true freshman really can do that to where it would be an advantage. Would it not be more advantagous for the team if they have four years of him being able to play four years with more of an impact than running down on a kickoff and being a stud 23 yr old or would you rather throw a kid in when hes 18, for kickoff coverage, or for getting three plays a game as a 4th-5th string running back because, due to being good enough to be the 4th-5th stringer he could "help your team win", but will it help as much as waiting and having him be a bigtime impact player as a 5th year senior? I'm guessing not. Thats just my view on it though.

[Big Al]

No, I think to play sports there should be a minimum NCAA standard. Otherwise, a school could just admit anyone they wanted and use "special considerations" as an excuse to let them in at the admissions office.


I'll be honest -- I don't know what the standards are for the different divisions but having a different, less stringent standard for DII ball makes zero sense. If so, there should be one minimum standard across all divisions for student-athletes.


And there is nothing magical about 4 years. Many regular students don't even graduate in 4 years anymore.

It's just another historical tradition that has lost its context. Get rid of it.

I disagree. The reason kids are taking longer than 4 years is because they're either unprepared for the college curriculum or they have financial pressures that dictate extending their undergraduate studies. The reality is most bacchalaureate programs take 4 years to complete and that is what a college athlete should be allowed to play. The reality is many student-athletes can and do finish in less than 4 years -- Alex Smith of Utah got a degree in finance in 3 years, which was part of the reason he gave up his final year of eligibility and declared for the draft.

Your suggestions, while they may provide more potential for enjoyment by the fans are completely counter to the balance we should seek for student-athletes. I love college FB but it should never rank ahead of the student-athlete's educational mission.

[PhoenixSupreme]

I almost feel bad for kids who get redshirted in a season and have it pulled off in the middle of the season, because those kids now lose that extra year and essentially half the season in which they were redshirted to potentially play. I think of Tyrod Taylor who was actually redshirted by Virginia Tech last year (to start his sophomore season). Everyone knew he had the capability to play and to start at QB as he proved that his freshman year but Frank Beamer decided to let Sean Glennon take full-time duties. When VT's offense was flat to start out last season and Glennon was struggling, Beamer took the redshirt off of Taylor to jump-start the offense, and VT ultimately did well. However for Taylor, instead of having 3 years of eligibility left starting this season, he now has 2 years left cuz the redshirt was taken off. Also, by not starting out last season as a redshirt, he would have certainly had more playing time than what he did, and so he was kind of screwed out of that half-season. I'm sure there are other college athletes who have been through the same scenario but this is the first one that comes to mind.

[MplsBison]

Well if its his right depends on the coaching staff. If he came in and had the coaching staff told him if we pull your redshirt depends on you and we'll ask you, then yes it is his right, and yes there are teams that do that. Now will 99% of players turn them down when they get asked to help the team out by losing that year? No. And also how many true freshman really can do that to where it would be an advantage. Would it not be more advantagous for the team if they have four years of him being able to play four years with more of an impact than running down on a kickoff and being a stud 23 yr old or would you rather throw a kid in when hes 18, for kickoff coverage, or for getting three plays a game as a 4th-5th string running back because, due to being good enough to be the 4th-5th stringer he could "help your team win", but will it help as much as waiting and having him be a bigtime impact player as a 5th year senior? I'm guessing not. Thats just my view on it though.

It's up the to coach. He can decide to pull the entire freshman class's shirts if he wants. There is no such "guaranteed redshirt year" clause in the LNI. You sign on the dotted line because you are planning to show up to fall camp to be a football player on the team, not to be a redshirt freshman who will only lift weights and be on the scout team.



But as I already pointed out, the entire argument is nullified if the NCAA would just grant players 5 seasons in 5 years. It's preposterous that they don't!

[MplsBison]

I'll be honest -- I don't know what the standards are for the different divisions but having a different, less stringent standard for DII ball makes zero sense. If so, there should be one minimum standard across all divisions for student-athletes.



I disagree. The reason kids are taking longer than 4 years is because they're either unprepared for the college curriculum or they have financial pressures that dictate extending their undergraduate studies. The reality is most bacchalaureate programs take 4 years to complete and that is what a college athlete should be allowed to play. The reality is many student-athletes can and do finish in less than 4 years -- Alex Smith of Utah got a degree in finance in 3 years, which was part of the reason he gave up his final year of eligibility and declared for the draft.

Your suggestions, while they may provide more potential for enjoyment by the fans are completely counter to the balance we should seek for student-athletes. I love college FB but it should never rank ahead of the student-athlete's educational mission.

Just because the NCAA gives you 5 seasons does not mean you must stay on the team for 5 seasons.

You are free to graduate in 3 or 4 years and leave the team at your will. There is no legal requirement that you stay on the team for the full length of your eligibility.



Simply put, if most NCAA football players are on the team for 5 years anyway, they should be eligible to play for all 5 of those years.

It makes perfect sense.




But either way, you are against the redshirt program. You either agree with me that players should be eligible all 5 of their years or that they should only get 4 years to play 4 seasons.

[FargoBison]

It appears Bohl is moving a RB to defense and that would leave NDSU with just two backs. With the way NDSU runs the ball, three backs are must, so it makes sense. We did have another RB but he has turf toe and will seek a medical redshirt.