Eliminate redshirting

[98lberEating2Lunches]

23 hours ago, Dark Energy said:

I bet we can come up with many ideas to help with this.  For example

1) require only 10 credit hours to be full time

2) give them automatic grade lifts in their classes

3) give full rides to all including stipends

4) don’t actually make them go to class

5) pay them as employees and allow 8 years of eligibility 

Which of your strawmen would you seriously propose, and why would those proposals be mutually exclusive to maintaining redshirts rather than eliminating them (in the best interest of student athletes)?

Where do you understand the majority of athletic scholarships money comes from?  Who pays the bill, and what do you believe their motives are?

Which of your strawman proposals might you characterize as telling other people how to best spend their money?

Which of your proposals might drive more would be scholarship donations to NIL opportunities targeting the elite, and thereby producing unintended consequences to the opposite effect of what you appear to promote (a greater spreading of some resource to a greater number of student athletes)?

[98lberEating2Lunches]

24 minutes ago, Dark Energy said:

the only litmus test you use is ‘benefit to student athletes

As I stated earlier "in the best interest of the member institutions of the organizing athletic organization (e.g., NCAA) and their student athletes."

I am not opposed to student athletes becoming paid employees.  However, I believe if such a change is made, then if schools try to control NIL related funds, as a company might any of its employees per the terms of employment, then this will cause a schism.  I believe two athletic organizations would result with no shared competition between the two.

Personally, I am not against student athletes having more options, so this wouldn't bother me at all.

Edited November 9, 2022 by 98lberEating2Lunches

[98lberEating2Lunches]

39 minutes ago, Dark Energy said:

would you use this reasoning to support 2 redshirt years?  25 full scholarships plus being paid beyond scholarship?  Ability to transfer at any point?  No need to take more than 8 credits for student athletes?

If the member institutions agreed it was in the best interest of its student athletes and they could support it financially, I wouldn't create a post to say 2 redshirt years should be eliminated.

One evaluation criteria I would consider is whether a proposal is effectively telling people the moral value they should have when spending their money.  I would avoid doing so.  Also, in the interest of student athletes, I would avoid policies that might reduce their opportunities due to reduced contributions to athletic scholarship funds.

There are probably government funding criteria and other laws that govern what constitutes a full time student.  Those should suffice.  I believe the term "student athlete" implies they are a full-time student.

Edited November 9, 2022 by 98lberEating2Lunches

[98lberEating2Lunches]

48 minutes ago, Dark Energy said:

Just trying to understand

So do you think you understand stand me and what I am saying any better?

For what it does or doesn't matter, I never was a student athlete, I know some student athletes quite well and have supported them directly, I provide financial support to my alma mater's academic programs, and I am a financial supporter of student athletes.

How about yourself?

What's your standing in all of this?

Edited November 9, 2022 by 98lberEating2Lunches

[Formally140]

I understand why people would argue against redshirts and/or excessive extra years..

Saying that exclusively having gray shirts would not almost exclusively favor well off families is ludicrous. 

[Dark Energy]

Thank you for directly addressing my questions.  To answer yours, I donate annually to my college’s academic fund as well as specifically to the athletic program (sometimes more than once a year due to drives).  Not sure that makes my case any stronger.

You and I have dramatically different opinions on the purpose of a university and the role of athletics at the university.    That is the root of our disagreement on redshirts.  And that is fine.  
 

Many of the ideas you support our would not mind, I would oppose.  And that is ok.

Curious to your thoughts on ‘redshirting’ a year or two in high school?  I’m guessing you are good with that.

 

[98lberEating2Lunches]

1 hour ago, Dark Energy said:

the ‘privilege’ realm

I believe the "privilege" being referred to had to do with the family's financial situation irrespective of merit due to athletic performance leading to earning a scholarship (a difference between gray and red shirts, in general).  Similarly, the "level up" year, as a true freshman redshirt, provides an equalizing lever against the same privilege that might have afforded one would be student athlete better training and nutrition over another.

[Dark Energy]

6 minutes ago, Formally140 said:

I understand why people would argue against redshirts and/or excessive extra years..

Saying that exclusively having gray shirts would not almost exclusively favor well off families is ludicrous. 

To be clear, I don’t like grey shirts.

Can you paint the picture for me though? Why would only well off families be the exclusive users?  If at an RTC, RTC can cover room and board.  Kid could have part time job.  Don’t tell me they can’t fit in a simple part time job. 
 

I think your logic would also imply that redshirts are almost exclusively for those well off.  Why pay for ANOTHER year of school - a gray shirt year is much cheaper!  You need to address this point.

And AGAIN, I’m all for getting rid of greyshirts.  I think it is harder than getting rid of redshirts.

 

[Dark Energy]

6 minutes ago, 98lberEating2Lunches said:

I believe the "privilege" being referred to had to do with the family's financial situation irrespective of merit due to athletic performance leading to earning a scholarship (a difference between gray and red shirts, in general).  Similarly, the "level up" year, as a true freshman redshirt, provides an equalizing lever against the same privilege that might have afforded one would be student athlete better training and nutrition over another.

A redshirt significantly equalizes 5+ year of socio economic differences?  I don’t know but I’m not jumping to this conclusion.   How do you explain paying for the 5th year? Less well off family is taking more loans.  
 

All that said, I would conjecture that taking a redshirt and taking a grey shirt DOES skew toward more well off families. Those that need their kid to graduate in four (and get a job) due to financial situations are more likely to not take a redshirt.  
 

The privilege argument cuts both ways.

[98lberEating2Lunches]

26 minutes ago, Dark Energy said:

thoughts on ‘redshirting’ a year or two in high school?  I’m guessing you are good with that.

First, I am glad we are communicating civilly.  I am glad you are tangibly invested in the issue of support for education and student athletes.  To me, it adds credibility to you.

Here's a couple more tenets that I live by:

1) I refrain from telling tell any parent how to best raise their children.

2) I refrain from violating any laws of the land in which I inhabit.

3) I believe in the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- taken together as one whole. 

People should be free enough to pursue what makes them happy as long it does not infringe of the inalienable rights of others 

Based on the above tenets, I can't get too worked up about a parent holding a child back for whatever reason that does not violate law.

Personally, I wish all young people could have the opportunity to take two gap years between HS and university.  I believe most HS graduates these days will end up working until they are 70.  SS benefits may be cut and only one's best 35 years count.  Say one works 40 years in a job (excluding pro sports careers), one needs only enter the workforce by 30.

It's my opinion that it's best to take time to find a career one loves, and can love for a lifetime, in the interest of one's pursuit of happiness.

Edited November 9, 2022 by 98lberEating2Lunches

[98lberEating2Lunches]

19 minutes ago, Dark Energy said:

How do you explain paying for the 5th year?

1) They are still under scholarship.

2) N.I.L. opprtunities (whether for the elite or a consortium that targets a team more broadly).

3) Academic scholarships not tied to athletic participation for non-revenue sports.

4) The gap is made up not by money but willingness to sacrifice in pursuit of happiness, in terms of an achievement thru athletic competition.

Edited November 9, 2022 by 98lberEating2Lunches

[Dark Energy]

All well said.  I agree with what you just wrote in large part.  I do admit to disagreeing with choices many make.  A parent screaming at their 8 year old kid who is losing a wrestling match is an example.  I’d look for ways to get across why those choices aren’t good for them, their loved ones, or society. 

 

I would also disagree with a high school systematically creating a path for high school athletes to take 5 years to graduate because it provides them a ‘benefit.’  Even if the parents and kid wanted it.  I transfer this belief to college as well.  
 

 

[Dark Energy]

4 minutes ago, 98lberEating2Lunches said:

1) They are still under scholarship.

2) N.I.L. opprtunities (whether for the elite or a consortium that targets a team more broadly).

3) The gap is made up not by money but willingness to sacrifice in pursuit of happiness, in terms of an achievement thru athletic competition.

Most are not under athletic scholarship.  They aren’t privileged in that way.  And those that are usually only have a fractional scholarship.  Paying 50 to 75% of costs at Northwestern is huge.  Even out of state student at a state school.  In other words those that have the money can more easily do it.  I have heard no disagreement with this.  

NIL?  Who has the time and energy to focus on NIL?  The super elite and the priviledged.  Let me take a selfie and focus on my tik toks! (Haha)

On 3 - ok.

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Dark Energy

[98lberEating2Lunches]

29 minutes ago, Dark Energy said:

Who has the time and energy to focus on NIL?

Consortiums formed for the primary reason of facilitating them on behalf of specific athletes or sports teams outside the purvue of institution-controlled athletic scholarships.  So the student athlete can focus on student athletics.

Northwestern is a funny choice to me as a example, because I imagine it to be one of the more, if note the most privileged universities with higher academic standards than other B1G universities.

Exactly what are your litmus tests or other evaluation criteria?

What moral codes or tenets are you basing them on?

How do you weight the word student-athlete (90-10, 70-30, 50-50)?  My impression is 50% is the absolute lowest you'd weight student).

Edited November 9, 2022 by 98lberEating2Lunches

[Bigbrog]

Is this argument more about the perceived "have's" and "have not's", or about redshirting??   To me those are two separate arguments and I find it hard to smoosh the two together, but that is just me.  I am all for redshirting and really don't see what baring it is if your family comes from wealth, or it doesn't.  People can argue all they want until they are blue in the face that this is somehow inherently "unfair" because of one's personal socio-economic situation...seems pretty illogical to base something that overwhelmingly seems like a good thing for college athletes (redshirting), because some may have a situation in which they come from a family that doesn't make as much money as another family.  My family was very poor growing up, and I was the first to go to college on both sides of my family and had to take loans out, work a part time job and try and wrestle...never once did I think taking a redshirt benefited the rich kid, and it however somehow hurt me.  Everyone's life situation is different, and I didn't begrudge the kids who had money, I instead focused on myself and what I had to do to better myself and my financial situation...whether there was redshirting allowed or it wasn't made no difference because of my lack of money in college, it did make a difference in how prepared kids were for doing athletics and academics in college regardless of income level...in a good way.

As for the argument that even NIL is for the super elite and "the privileged" (sure like to know how you define that ), again NIL isn't inherently for or against anyone...it is there for anyone to take advantage of...just because one person may be better at marketing themselves than another person doesn't mean it isn't fair.

[98lberEating2Lunches]

25 minutes ago, Dark Energy said:

Most are not under athletic scholarship.

Are we just talking wrestling now?

Yes, in team of 35 wrestlers, 9.9 athletic scholarships will only go so far.  I don't think the fifth year will make a material difference on the degree of sacrifice when it comes to share.

I am all for member institutions increasing scholarships well above 9.9, if they can agree do so.

[Viratas]

So are we eliminating them or not? At the risk of sounding absurd, this issue should have been resolved in four pages, not five.

(see what I did there)

[Theo Brixton]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I agree with most of this post.  But to clarify, I think the only reason “privilege” has been brought up is regarding grayshirting.  Yes, I’d bet the majority of wrestlers taking grayshirts come from “privilege.”  The main argument I’ve seen against this is “lol privilege,” and one comment claiming someone “might need to work for a year” - does anyone have any examples of a D1 wrestler that took a grayshirt because he “needed to work for a year”?

Grayshirting for the purpose of extending eligibility is ridiculous but virtually irrelevant to outcome disparities between the "privileged" (whatever that means?) and others in collegiate wrestling. Access to elite club wrestling is far more relevant to performance differences in wrestling. A middle-income family committed to a child's athletic development can afford club fees for even the best clubs, assuming location is not an issue. I would hardly call a middle-income family "privileged" but as we all know, the term has been perverted. It is this connotation that people bristle at. 

And this is besides the point that the cost of living in a flophouse off campus while training a few hours a day at an RTC is something that is cost-prohibitive to no recruit a coach is interested in. 

[Formally140]

1 hour ago, Dark Energy said:

To be clear, I don’t like grey shirts.

Can you paint the picture for me though? Why would only well off families be the exclusive users?  If at an RTC, RTC can cover room and board.  Kid could have part time job.  Don’t tell me they can’t fit in a simple part time job. 
 

I think your logic would also imply that redshirts are almost exclusively for those well off.  Why pay for ANOTHER year of school - a gray shirt year is much cheaper!  You need to address this point.

And AGAIN, I’m all for getting rid of greyshirts.  I think it is harder than getting rid of redshirts.

 

Sigh, you do really not process the difference of actually being in school taking classes.. with financial aid, Pell grants and athletic money..

vs.

and not actually in school.. relying on “maybe” some RTC support and “maybe” getting a part time job.. 

You do understand we are talking about DI athletes right.. 90-95% are going DI because they want to win nationals or AA. And go to school.. it is not “something they just do during college” like most DII and below.

When you talk to anyone that actually knows what they are talking about.. the actual difference between DI and below is not the coaching, not how hard they work, not the talent levels because high risk kids are going DI less and less.. and not even really resources.. it’s that DI athletics are a full time job. Period. Hell. One of the main pitches to below DI to athletes is that they get to be a “student-athlete” not an “athlete-student”

A lower income family will be much more okay with.. and able to support.. maybe” 5 years on campus where they are on the team and could potentially start.. than figuring out a way to pay for a gap year.
 

I don’t really know if you were a college athlete.. but many athletes still do need redshirts to adjust on life on campus. Taking 12-15 credit hours. Plus 6am workouts, plus individual sessions, plus practice. Plus being away from home. And it isn’t high school.. after week 1. It’s go time, no couple months to adjust

If you want to argue for not giving the extra years.. okay. The rest of what you are saying makes you look ignorant 

 

[Formally140]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Is this argument more about the perceived "have's" and "have not's", or about redshirting??   To me those are two separate arguments and I find it hard to smoosh the two together, but that is just me.  I am all for redshirting and really don't see what baring it is if your family comes from wealth, or it doesn't.  People can argue all they want until they are blue in the face that this is somehow inherently "unfair" because of one's personal socio-economic situation...seems pretty illogical to base something that overwhelmingly seems like a good thing for college athletes (redshirting), because some may have a situation in which they come from a family that doesn't make as much money as another family.  My family was very poor growing up, and I was the first to go to college on both sides of my family and had to take loans out, work a part time job and try and wrestle...never once did I think taking a redshirt benefited the rich kid, and it however somehow hurt me.  Everyone's life situation is different, and I didn't begrudge the kids who had money, I instead focused on myself and what I had to do to better myself and my financial situation...whether there was redshirting allowed or it wasn't made no difference because of my lack of money in college, it did make a difference in how prepared kids were for doing athletics and academics in college regardless of income level...in a good way.

As for the argument that even NIL is for the super elite and "the privileged" (sure like to know how you define that ), again NIL isn't inherently for or against anyone...it is there for anyone to take advantage of...just because one person may be better at marketing themselves than another person doesn't mean it isn't fair.

People pointed out that gray shirting is much more likely to be done and doable for upper middle and high income families.. than to lower middle and low income families.

especially because access to sport in general and especially sports like wrestling is getting expensive 

The TS started a specious argument that redshirting as an active student on campus is comparable.. when it is not. 
 

For me at least, it isn’t about “begrudging” anything. It’s stating facts on the ground. 

[bnwtwg]

The simple solution (on paper) is to blow up the NCAA and pursue the sports academy route used most notably in Euro football. A person focuses either on academics or sport. If sport, they receive $ and can fully focus their efforts on sport. If academics, they fully focus their efforts on upper/secondary school. There is no overlap, there is no redshirt, there is only the chosen focus.

Death to the NCAA... but it may mean death to ours and many other olympic sports if it comes to fruition.

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

The simple solution (on paper) is to blow up the NCAA and pursue the sports academy route used most notably in Euro football. A person focuses either on academics or sport. If sport, they receive $ and can fully focus their efforts on sport. If academics, they fully focus their efforts on upper/secondary school. There is no overlap, there is no redshirt, there is only the chosen focus.

Death to the NCAA... but it may mean death to ours and many other olympic sports if it comes to fruition.

I'd suggest the Mike Leach model is much better but of course its never going to happen. 

[1032004]

4 hours ago, Dark Energy said:

I also clearly pointed out that taking a redshirt would fall into the ‘privilege’ realm.  If you are paying for 50% of school (or 25%), having the option to pay for a 5th year is pretty privileged … no?  

Compare to Greyshirt - not paying for school or it is cheap (community college).  Which is more privileged?

@Theo Brixton - your solution would be better than today.  

If someone taking a grayshirt is living at home (and not because his family moved to the same town his future college is in) and taking classes at community college, then yes, they’re most likely not “privileged.”  I’m just not sure if that happens much in terms of wrestlers that grayshirt.   I don’t know the specifics of if any housing is paid for (I had heard that about Cornell, not sure about PSU) - if so then yes that could open grayshirting up to kids that don’t come from “privileged” families, but it would moreso just be the benefit of wrestling for a school that is “privileged” to have strong alumni/RTC support.

Although to be fair, I don’t think grayshirting is really that common in wrestling.  But if redshirting was eliminated than it would be much more  common.

I guess redshirting could be an example of “privilege,” too, but IMO that’s really only assuming they’re not getting much in scholarship and/or financial aid money.  And again it’s been stated that a significant number of overall college students take longer than 4 years to graduate anyway…although I suppose it’s possible they are more likely to be “privileged” as well…

Edited November 9, 2022 by 1032004

[Formally140]

15 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

The simple solution (on paper) is to blow up the NCAA and pursue the sports academy route used most notably in Euro football. A person focuses either on academics or sport. If sport, they receive $ and can fully focus their efforts on sport. If academics, they fully focus their efforts on upper/secondary school. There is no overlap, there is no redshirt, there is only the chosen focus.

Death to the NCAA... but it may mean death to ours and many other olympic sports if it comes to fruition.

I think people need to really confront whether or not they want to grow the sport. Which can is being done.. or decide if they want it to only become a primarily upper middle and upper class club sport. But I don’t think people are willing to confront the reality. 
 

What I’ve also noticed is that there is a certain subset of people that seem to be against anything that’s makes it more possible for a kid who started later, to catch up to the kid that was dragged around the country and had a bunch of money spent on them from a young age. 

It will be interesting to see how it goes the next few years

 

 

 

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Theo Brixton said:

Grayshirting for the purpose of extending eligibility is ridiculous but virtually irrelevant to outcome disparities between the "privileged" (whatever that means?) and others in collegiate wrestling. Access to elite club wrestling is far more relevant to performance differences in wrestling. A middle-income family committed to a child's athletic development can afford club fees for even the best clubs, assuming location is not an issue. I would hardly call a middle-income family "privileged" but as we all know, the term has been perverted. It is this connotation that people bristle at. 

And this is besides the point that the cost of living in a flophouse off campus while training a few hours a day at an RTC is something that is cost-prohibitive to no recruit a coach is interested in. 

I wasn’t necessarily talking about the “outcomes” of grayshirting, just the people who are more likely to do it.  I did mention I don’t even think grayshirting is really much of a problem in wrestling currently - and really outside of the Ivy League it may not have resulted in much benefit.  At Penn State it seems to just mean you’ll get recruited over.

Can you clarify your last paragraph?  Are you saying living in a “flophouse” is or is not cost prohibitive?