forums

New ACC Redshirt Rules Coming?

Advertisement
I think it is stupid, might as well give everyone 5 years of eligibility. Means you can play in all the OOC games and still redshirt. Basically means a Fr QB can play mop-up the 4 games that their team is dominating and still redshirt. It's cool, it gives them experience, but personally I feel like it is kind of cheap.
 
Didn't that used to be a rule? Or something like can't play past a certain percentage of the season?
 
johnnytsunami01 said:
I think it is stupid, might as well give everyone 5 years of eligibility. Means you can play in all the OOC games and still redshirt. Basically means a Fr QB can play mop-up the 4 games that their team is dominating and still redshirt. It's cool, it gives them experience, but personally I feel like it is kind of cheap.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's the point.

The ACC wants to see the best players when conference play opens, so you get the OOC time to basically preseason the team.
 
Advertisement
duke4heisman said:
Didn't that used to be a rule? Or something like can't play past a certain percentage of the season?
Click to expand...

It was.

Not sure when it changed.

But I vividly remember guys like Meriweather and Ryan Moore playing in 02, but still redshirting. Moore caught a pass against Temple and Meriweather definitely made a tackle on the kickoff against UF.

Not sure if it was 3 games or less than a certain percentage, but you’re right.
 
duke4heisman said:
Didn't that used to be a rule? Or something like can't play past a certain percentage of the season?
Click to expand...

It basically just gets rid of the medical redshirt.

They proposed it last year too:

In an announcement Wednesday, AFCA executive director Todd Berry said a proposal has been developed that would allow a player to be given redshirt so long as he's played in four games or less in a season. Those four games could come at anytime -- beginning of the season, middle or end -- so long as he "doesn't play again for any reason that season."

The proposal would eliminate medical redshirts and their subjective nature. Under the proposal, whether a student-athletes plays in four games or does not, the timetable of five years to play four seasons would remain intact.

All the while, the NCAA wouldn't be able to burn a redshirt because, say, a backup quarterback comes in during garbage time during a game in late October. Currently, a player can receive a medical redshirt if he's competed in fewer than 30 percent of the games in a season or three games, whichever is greater.

The proposal is a replacement for medical hardships only and has nothing to do with a player who switches schools to attend to a sick family member or other cases in which a year might be lost to the detriment of the player. Players would still need a waiver for a sixth season of eligibility.
Click to expand...
 
Meaning, in this years scenario fpr example, Perry could have played against Pitt, Clemson, and Wiscy (or even 2 playoff games) and still shirt so long as he had never played in a different game. Am I getting that right?
 
wherrera8 said:
Meaning, in this years scenario fpr example, Perry could have played against Pitt, Clemson, and Wiscy (or even 2 playoff games) and still shirt so long as he had never played in a different game. Am I getting that right?
Click to expand...

I don't know if the rules apply for the postseason, but in theory yes, he could have played against UNC/Pitt/Clemson/Wisky and still had his 4 year eligibility.
 
Advertisement
GenericYesMan said:
wherrera8 said:
Meaning, in this years scenario fpr example, Perry could have played against Pitt, Clemson, and Wiscy (or even 2 playoff games) and still shirt so long as he had never played in a different game. Am I getting that right?
Click to expand...

I don't know if the rules apply for the postseason, but in theory yes, he could have played against UNC/Pitt/Clemson/Wisky and still had his 4 year eligibility.
Click to expand...

This needs to be passed!
 
duke4heisman said:
GenericYesMan said:
wherrera8 said:
Meaning, in this years scenario fpr example, Perry could have played against Pitt, Clemson, and Wiscy (or even 2 playoff games) and still shirt so long as he had never played in a different game. Am I getting that right?
Click to expand...

I don't know if the rules apply for the postseason, but in theory yes, he could have played against UNC/Pitt/Clemson/Wisky and still had his 4 year eligibility.
Click to expand...

This needs to be passed!
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think this has to be an answer to people skipping bowl games. I mean players are leaving teams out there dry, and teams lose depth over that. It will only grow. I think allowing redshirts to play in bowl games will be an equalizer.
 
If it takes your average d!p**** run of the mill college student over 4 years to graduate then I have zero problem essentially allowing a 5th year of eligibility to kids that want to utilize it. We're all about using that term "student-athlete", right?
 
Advertisement
Canes82 said:
duke4heisman said:
Didn't that used to be a rule? Or something like can't play past a certain percentage of the season?
Click to expand...

It was.

Not sure when it changed.

But I vividly remember guys like Meriweather and Ryan Moore playing in 02, but still redshirting. Moore caught a pass against Temple and Meriweather definitely made a tackle on the kickoff against UF.

Not sure if it was 3 games or less than a certain percentage, but you’re right.
Click to expand...

Yes and Old Bobby Bowden was notorious for that ****

but the rule was only if they were injured by the fourth game of the season (if my memory is correct) something along those lines
 
Advertisement
GenericYesMan said:
3FW said:
Perry may have played this year.
Click to expand...

He would have absolutely gotten snaps, he could have gotten into the BC/Duke/ND/Clemson games for sure.
Click to expand...

If this is passed, it is a good thing for Williams. He will actually get some game time and a chance to prove himself without losing a redshirt. Not going to worry about which games Perry could have played in, but rather what can be done next season.
 
duke4heisman said:
GenericYesMan said:
wherrera8 said:
Meaning, in this years scenario fpr example, Perry could have played against Pitt, Clemson, and Wiscy (or even 2 playoff games) and still shirt so long as he had never played in a different game. Am I getting that right?
Click to expand...

I don't know if the rules apply for the postseason, but in theory yes, he could have played against UNC/Pitt/Clemson/Wisky and still had his 4 year eligibility.
Click to expand...

This needs to be passed!
Click to expand...

If the rule would of been in place, Perry would of played in the games that Evan played mop up in: Bethune Cookman, UNC, and Pitt. Then he would of played in either Clemson or Wisky if Richt was willing to pull the QB and put him in.

But then again I wouldn't of been surprised if he would of put him in the Toledo or Duke game, because I am sure he would of wanted to put him in for experience and not really think he had to save him for the end of the season because Rosier was sucking up a storm
 
This will also keep some kids from transferring. When these kids with these big egos get on campus, they don’t wanna redshirt
 
I like this rule especially under the premise mentioned of allowing some guys to get some PT in blow-outs. I think that could provide huge benefits for the conference overall as far as getting guys experience.
I'd sure as **** like to have seen Perry in four games LY and then we'd know, to an extent, what we have.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top