Aaron Mends

[Fryowa]

Yeah but dude, he has put in his time.
He has had multiple injuries. Which all they have to do is show documentation of for one year, besides this one and he should qualify.

He played 12 games in 2015, 12 games in 2016, and 9 games last year. He never missed a year from injury.

I want him to play as much as the next guy, but he doesn’t fit under any of the rules. That’s why I’m not in favor of redshirting unless it’s an absolute necessity. Keep it in your back pocket in case some shit like this happens.

 

[4thngoal]

He played 12 games in 2015, 12 games in 2016, and 9 games last year. He never missed a year from injury.

I want him to play as much as the next guy, but he doesn’t fit under any of the rules. That’s why I’m not in favor of redshirting unless it’s an absolute necessity. Keep it in your back pocket in case some shit like this happens.

You're probably right, but it still stinks. Those rules need to be examined, because they are not the greatest anyway.
As for redshirting, that's why it's nice to see us trying to get a little bit away from being so deeply rooted in being a developmental program. Yes you will have some of it, but it sure is nice when they come in closer to being able to contribute than not.
If for no other reason than what you said.

 

[Fryowa]

You're probably right, but it still stinks. Those rules need to be examined, because they are not the greatest anyway.

I do think the rules are probably as good as they can be, and I’m ok with them as long as they are enforced equally.

You do at some point have to draw a line and say no more...otherwise you’re going to get people gaming the system more than they already do. I know it sucks but sometimes life hands you a big dose tough shit once in a while, like blowing your knee out right before you get a chance to play a game on tv that you’ve worked your whole life for.

If we allowed say, two injury years...there would be people who’d want three, and so on. I really think the NCAA should make redshirting more unattractive rather than then the other way around.

 

[4thngoal]

I do think the rules are probably as good as they can be, and I’m ok with them as long as they are enforced equally.

You do at some point have to draw a line and say no more...otherwise you’re going to get people gaming the system more than they already do. I know it sucks but sometimes life hands you a big dose tough shit once in a while, like blowing your knee out right before you get a chance to play a game on tv that you’ve worked your whole life for.

If we allowed say, two injury years...there would be people who’d want three, and so on. I really think the NCAA should make redshirting more unattractive rather than then the other way around.

That's exactly what I meant about examining the rules. The way they are, it's totally up in the air. Two people with almost identical situations but different outcomes is not exactly a fair way of doing things.

 

[AreWeThereYet]

I would make two changes in the medical redshirt rules.

#1) Change cutoff for qualifying at 8 halves rather than 30% of games played.

#2) If you have already burned your redshirt, but miss either your junior or senior year because of season ending injury, you can qualify for a sixth year medical redshirt.

Qualifying injuries and records proving injury remains the same.

These two changes wouldn't be as drastic as going to 6 years to play 4. There is an argument that many injuries take more than 12 months to heal. The counter argument against 6 to play 4 is it leaves too much room to play the system.

 

[Fryowa]

That's exactly what I meant about examining the rules. The way they are, it's totally up in the air. Two people with almost identical situations but different outcomes is not exactly a fair way of doing things.

I don’t think it happens all that often though (two different outcomes). Kempt got his sixth year due to the run-off rule which doesn’t have anything to do with injuries. It basically rewards players if they aren’t good enough and a school brings in a different player where they know the first player (the one wanting an extra year) will never get to play. In other words, they got “run off” by their school. Which is a stupid rule, but not the same situation.

A lot of people thought Drew Ott got screwed, but technically he played too many games. Not by much, but enough.

 

[Fryowa]

I would make two changes in the medical redshirt rules.

#1) Change cutoff for qualifying at 8 halves rather than 30% of games played.

#2) If you have already burned your redshirt, but miss either your junior or senior year because of season ending injury, you can qualify for a sixth year medical redshirt.

Qualifying injuries and records proving injury remains the same.

These two changes wouldn't be as drastic as going to 6 years to play 4. There is an argument that many injuries take more than 12 months to heal. The counter argument against 6 to play 4 is it leaves too much room to play the system.

I’d be ok with that if you changed #2 to senior year only. I think if you left it at junior or senior, it would encourage even more redshirting than there already is (which is probably 95% as it is). At some point why even have a freshman year of football?

I just think the voluntary redshirt policy is against the spirit of the four year college career, and like a lot of things isn’t used for the original intent anymore. If there wasn’t a voluntary redshirt available we wouldn’t be talking about Ott, Boettger, Mends, etc.

People would argue that the “product” on the field wouldn’t be as good because players wouldn’t have a freebie developmental year. Would that be the case? Maybe maybe not. You’d still be dealing with the same subset of kids playing ball and no one would have an advantage in that respect.

 

[4thngoal]

I would make two changes in the medical redshirt rules.

#1) Change cutoff for qualifying at 8 halves rather than 30% of games played.

#2) If you have already burned your redshirt, but miss either your junior or senior year because of season ending injury, you can qualify for a sixth year medical redshirt.

Qualifying injuries and records proving injury remains the same.

These two changes wouldn't be as drastic as going to 6 years to play 4. There is an argument that many injuries take more than 12 months to heal. The counter argument against 6 to play 4 is it leaves too much room to play the system.

That's pretty good.

 

[AreWeThereYet]

I’d be ok with that if you changed #2 to senior year only. I think if you left it at junior or senior, it would encourage even more redshirting than there already is (which is probably 95% as it is). At some point why even have a freshman year of football?

I just think the voluntary redshirt policy is against the spirit of the four year college career, and like a lot of things isn’t used for the original intent anymore. If there wasn’t a voluntary redshirt available we wouldn’t be talking about Ott, Boettger, Mends, etc.

People would argue that the “product” on the field wouldn’t be as good because players wouldn’t have a freebie developmental year. Would that be the case? Maybe maybe not. You’d still be dealing with the same subset of kids playing ball and no one would have an advantage in that respect.

I would be fine with senior only as well. I'm not sure it would affect freshman redshirting so much. My perception is freshman redshirting is going down a bit because high level athletes are coming out of high school more advanced than ever and want to get the show on the road. Coaches also want to keep incoming freshmen engaged.

I still think giving both juniors and seniors the possibility of a medical redshirt makes sense. It gives athletes who have had major injuries later in their student career a chance to get back into the game and fully develop. For a few of them it may mean a significant athletic career after college.

Seniors only, would be a more conservative approach less likely to change the way things are otherwise done in an unpredictable manor.

 

[4thngoal]

I would agree with the Sr year as well. It shows they stayed to graduate and isn't that the goal??
It eliminates the risk reward if you are being called up as a Jr. (For the most part).
It fixes a slew of problems with the system.
Punishing someone that chose to stay and graduate, doesn't seem fair. Punishing someone who stuck it out and makes it (as in this case) doesn't seem fair either.

 

[AreWeThereYet]

The main question about extending it to juniors would be how it affects graduate transfers. Someone who is injured for his junior season could graduate at either mid-term or at the end of the year, transfer and have two years of eligibility. That sort of situation could have positives or negatives for the team involved.

 

[4thngoal]

It doesn't seem fair to let a Jr in HS commit before his Sr season, then to honor that if he gets hurt that year, only to turn around and screw him on his Sr year of college. From injury or in the draft, which causes them to leave without a degree.
That's what I was saying, he put in the time and effort.
It just doesn't feel right.

 

[ChosenChildren]

The NCAA is absolute crap. The Power Five schools needs to bolt from the NCAA and make their own rules.

 

[homes]

I was looking forward to seeing him play this fall. Tough break for a guy who put in his time. An ACL tear is usually a year, Snyder's early return last year was the exception. A sixth year seems out of the question based on the eligibility requirements, as loose as those seem to be applied.

 

[homes]

The NCAA is absolute crap. The Power Five schools needs to bolt from the NCAA and make their own rules.

If you're Alabama or Ohio State, or any of that stature, you sort of get to anyway, which underscores your point about the NCAA.

 

[Fryowa]

...which causes them to leave without a degree...

That's a 100% personal choice. We can't nanny people to that degree.

No one would have given a damn if I or any of you on this board finished college (other than maybe our parents); we don't need to give a damn if a football player does either. They're in school of their own volition and they know exactly what they signed up for.

 

[Fryowa]

...Snyder's early return last year was the exception...

Really bad choice, even though he thought he was 100% and was obviously cleared by doctors. You can be the most fit person in the world and it still doesn't make your ligaments heal faster than other humans. ACLs are going to occur in Iowa football every single year like they always have; I hope future players (and coaches) take note of what happened to Snyder by coming back early.

 

[4thngoal]

That's a 100% personal choice. We can't nanny people to that degree.

No one would have given a damn if I or any of you on this board finished college (other than maybe our parents); we don't need to give a damn if a football player does either. They're in school of their own volition and they know exactly what they signed up for.

But they don't have a choice, or it's severely hampered anyway.
Take a Jr that is projected 3rd round. If he stays and graduates, his numbers might go up, they might go down. However any scout worth a crap might notice it's because nobody threw their direction or that they didn't get as many touches for any number of reasons.
But what is a bigger concern is what happens if they get dinged up or something more serious?
Giving them the opportunity to play another year if that happens, let's them not only graduate, it actually gives them a real choice.
I wouldn't even have a problem (and think there should be one) throwing in a gpa clause, which eliminates people trying to beat the system, because it shows the student is and was serious about their education. Because you ask a kid to be a student athlete. You ask them to perform at a higher level in many areas, for a number of years. Then you basically say it's this or your education, decide. Not to mention situations like this one.

 

[Fryowa]

But they don't have a choice, or it's severely hampered anyway.
Take a Jr that is projected 3rd round. If he stays and graduates, his numbers might go up, they might go down. However any scout worth a crap might notice it's because nobody threw their direction or that they didn't get as many touches for any number of reasons.
But what is a bigger concern is what happens if they get dinged up or something more serious?
Giving them the opportunity to play another year if that happens, let's them not only graduate, it actually gives them a real choice.

Nothing's preventing a player from graduating if he doesn't get to play his final year. That is completely his choice. The scholarship also stays in effect so there's no tuition to worry about either.

If a football player decides to quit school because he got hurt and can't play anymore he's an idiot, not a victim.

 

[4thngoal]

Nothing's preventing a player from graduating if he doesn't get to play his final year. That is completely his choice. The scholarship also stays in effect so there's no tuition to worry about either.

If a football player decides to quit school because he got hurt and can't play anymore he's an idiot, not a victim.

That is not what I'm saying at all. I get they can graduate even if hurt.