Willie idea for 'redshirt' controversy - 5 years to compete - 4 post seasons. Period.

[Dark Energy]

Making a new thread since I think this would get lost in the other 'eliminate redshirts' thread.

Willie, on his podcast, put forward the idea of letting wrestlers have 5 years of competition available, but only 4 chances to compete in post season (conference tourney and NCAA championships).  

No medicals, no Olympic redshirts.  Clean.  Simple.  Lets teams pick whoever they want during regular season to put out in duals, opens .. and settle in on the right person to put into post season.  

I'm still in the camp of 4 years to compete, 4 post seasons.  It is even simpler!  More guys get more scholarship money.  Blah blah blah, I don't need to rehash.  

But if you feel that some folks need that first year to phase in.  Or would like to hold a 'redshirt' in the bag in case of an injury ... this is clean.  Would be a step in right direction.  And I like the idea of removing the weird situation that the kid can't compete attached.  

And I love the idea of no more of this 6/7 year of eligibility crap.  

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

10 minutes ago, Dark Energy said:

Making a new thread since I think this would get lost in the other 'eliminate redshirts' thread.

Willie, on his podcast, put forward the idea of letting wrestlers have 5 years of competition available, but only 4 chances to compete in post season (conference tourney and NCAA championships).  

No medicals, no Olympic redshirts.  Clean.  Simple.  Lets teams pick whoever they want during regular season to put out in duals, opens .. and settle in on the right person to put into post season.  

I'm still in the camp of 4 years to compete, 4 post seasons.  It is even simpler!  More guys get more scholarship money.  Blah blah blah, I don't need to rehash.  

But if you feel that some folks need that first year to phase in.  Or would like to hold a 'redshirt' in the bag in case of an injury ... this is clean.  Would be a step in right direction.  And I like the idea of removing the weird situation that the kid can't compete attached.  

And I love the idea of no more of this 6/7 year of eligibility crap.  

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

I have a hard time believing that revenue sport leaders would back a proposal like this, so this would mean it would need to be a non-revenue sport proposal. While there have been examples in the past where some revenue sports have had different eligibility rules than other sports, I do not think now is the time the NCAA is interested in limiting athletes' opportunities given its recent loses in the court room.

Beyond that, I don't really see the problem that needs solving. I understand the 4 wrestlers getting 5 years of money vs 5 wrestlers getting 4 years of money argument. But I guess it starts with me not caring that some wrestlers took 6 or 7 years to compete 4 times.

[Formally140]

It’s a sound idea. I think not accepting Olympic redshirts will actually be the hardest pill to get coaches and the NCAA to agree to
 

Then the next question is.. how are medical redshirts handled? Because getting that accepted will be almost as hard. 
 

I really think people’s view of this is super warped because of the Covid years.. 
 

And this is where I might offend some people.. but a lot of the.. vitriol seems to come from either not getting the same chances or because it doesn’t work that way in hs

[Dark Energy]

I think for Olympic Redshirt --- you know the year, if you want to skip NCAAs that year to go for Olympics ... there you go.  You have that option.

For Medical - well, you are rolling the dice.  You can take your redshirt now, but if you get hurt next year, sorry.  You only get so many shots.  Choose wisely.  At which point, you move along.

[Theo Brixton]

I think this is a fine compromise. No need for more than 5 years and it allows some flexibility within those 5 years.

[ionel]

51 minutes ago, Dark Energy said:

Making a new thread since I think this would get lost in the other 'eliminate redshirts' thread.

Willie, on his podcast, put forward the idea of letting wrestlers have 5 years of competition available, but only 4 chances to compete in post season (conference tourney and NCAA championships).  

No medicals, no Olympic redshirts.  Clean.  Simple.  Lets teams pick whoever they want during regular season to put out in duals, opens .. and settle in on the right person to put into post season.  

I'm still in the camp of 4 years to compete, 4 post seasons.  It is even simpler!  More guys get more scholarship money.  Blah blah blah, I don't need to rehash.  

But if you feel that some folks need that first year to phase in.  Or would like to hold a 'redshirt' in the bag in case of an injury ... this is clean.  Would be a step in right direction.  And I like the idea of removing the weird situation that the kid can't compete attached.  

And I love the idea of no more of this 6/7 year of eligibility crap.  

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

I like it but off course it's not going to happen.  Have you got approval from Carl and Tommie B? 

[Crablegs]

What exactly is the problem that needs solved?

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, Crablegs said:

What exactly is the problem that needs solved?

kids er old folks hanging around for 8 years just to wrestle and taking spots away from the youngsters

[Pish]

Agree with Willie 100%

Question as I’m sure someone will know the answer.

Has anyone ever taken the Olympic redshirt and then made a world or Olympic team that year? Seems to me the people that take the Olympic redshirt never make the team. Kind of a waste if that’s the case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Husker_Du]

@Dark Energy credit yourself for the genesis of it.

i feel (in a lot of different aspects of the world) that we add layers of rules that make things really out of whack that we should often times just revert to very simple structures. 

[Idaho]

5 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

@Dark Energy credit yourself for the genesis of it.

i feel (in a lot of different aspects of the world) that we add layers of rules that make things really out of whack that we should often times just revert to very simple structures. 

Exactly... 5 years....4 years of post season - very simple. 

[Theo Brixton]

10 hours ago, Pish said:

Agree with Willie 100%

Question as I’m sure someone will know the answer.

Has anyone ever taken the Olympic redshirt and then made a world or Olympic team that year? Seems to me the people that take the Olympic redshirt never make the team. Kind of a waste if that’s the case

 

Brandon Paulson (1996) and Garrett Lowney (2000) are two who qualified in the year that they redshirted. I think Barry Davis took a redshirt in 1984 but am not sure if it was an Olympic redshirt. 

 

[Bigbrog]

20 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

@Dark Energy credit yourself for the genesis of it.

i feel (in a lot of different aspects of the world) that we add layers of rules that make things really out of whack that we should often times just revert to very simple structures. 

Whole heartedly agree with this premise but let's think through what the real problem is and then solve for that.  Once you do that you can use the simplest solution possible.

I personally haven't heard what the real problem is...I've heard things that people like and don't like but that doesn't always mean something is a problem.  Example...are we truly loosing numbers of wrestlers because of the redshirt process as it currently is?  Are we loosing college programs because of the redshirt process?  What does the data show in terms of correlation versus causation?

 

[Husker_Du]

13 minutes ago, Idaho said:

Exactly... 5 years....4 years of post season - very simple. 

are you having a difficult time wrapping your head around it?

it's pretty simple. and exponentially more simple than what we have currently.

 

[Husker_Du]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

Whole heartedly agree with this premise but let's think through what the real problem is and then solve for that.  Once you do that you can use the simplest solution possible.

I personally haven't heard what the real problem is...I've heard things that people like and don't like but that doesn't always mean something is a problem.  Example...are we truly loosing numbers of wrestlers because of the redshirt process as it currently is?  Are we loosing college programs because of the redshirt process?  What does the data show in terms of correlation versus causation?

 

the problem it fixes is that more kids can get in the starting lineup which (as we have seen in the rule's first two weeks of existence) makes things much more exciting in a sport that has seen it's regular season dampened. also keeps a higher percentage of the roster engaged.

^^^ that's the factual part

the other part, which people can debate their feelings on, is that we now have a system that is largely chaotic in which guys work the system to maintain eligibility for 7 years.

there's another prong of the argument in which the case could be made that having 4 years only, or 5 years max would help ease the coaches' management of schollies in a sport where there's not even enough to support the starting lineup fully. 

[bnwtwg]

7 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Whole heartedly agree with this premise but let's think through what the real problem is and then solve for that.  Once you do that you can use the simplest solution possible.

I personally haven't heard what the real problem is...I've heard things that people like and don't like but that doesn't always mean something is a problem.  Example...are we truly loosing numbers of wrestlers because of the redshirt process as it currently is?  Are we loosing college programs because of the redshirt process?  What does the data show in terms of correlation versus causation?

 

The underlying premise to solve is that football and men's basketball wholly subsidize ours and other non-revenue (read: olympic) sports. We all have to share the same playground and it leads to inequities that will never have solutions that everyone walks away happy with.

1. If FB and BB go away, what happens to non-revenue sports? How does this help the growth of the sport instead of concentrating a cumulatively smaller participation group? 
2. If they stay but FB and BB get different participation rules, then someone WILL take them to court and they most likely win. This would very likely lead to scenario #1
3. If they stay and FB and BB keep the same participation rules, then we maintain the current status quo. This is the most likely scenario for the next 10-ish years

It's like the phrase goes: you can only hope to please some of the people some of the time.

[Jason Bryant]

Been supportive the 4-in-5 suggestion for years. I think Kolat was the first I heard mention the concept years ago.

It just makes sense. By product is it could/would eliminate forfeits at the sports highest collegiate level, too.

[BobDole]

So the question to ask is.... how can/will a coach exploit this? We've seen every rule possible exploited lately so we first need to figure out how we can manipulate the system then work from there.

[nhs67]

Imagine Calipari with some of his super frosh.

Going 31-0 in the regular season then sitting his three super frosh for the postseason. 

Having them suit up but sit the bench in actual red shirts.

Kentucky is down by six with three minutes to go in the SEC finals.  Whoever they are playing nails a three to go up by nine.

He looks over at his assistant and gives the solemn, yet assertive nod.

BOOM!  One of the super frosh yank their redshirt off and go to the table to rotate in.  Kentucky wins the SEC championship on a last second DUNK!

National Semi-finals come along.  Kentucky is down six again and once again their opponent (a different one) nails a three to go up by nine - only this time there is onky two and a half minutes to go.

Calipari with the nod again...

BLAMMO!  Superfrosh #2 yanks off his actual red shirt and checks in to thr game.

Kentucky down by two and Frosh#2 throws up a prayer to Frosh#1 and BOOM!  Dunk and a foul!  He sinks the foup and they win.

NCAA finals.  Calipari shoots down the media before the game that he is going to pull superfrosh#3's shirt.  He is confident.  Even says he may not even sit with thel courtside, but he is obviously joking.

Two minutes to go.  Down by two this time, but their opponent shoots up a three.  Gets fouled and makes it.  Puts them down six.

OMFG THERE IS THE NOD!  HE JACK NICHOLSONED THAT SUMBICH!  SUPERFROSH#3 GOES HULKAMANIAC AND SHREDS HIS SHIRT!  HE IS IN THE GAME! 

Kentucky scores 16 unanswered points in two minutes and wins by ten.

Impressive.

All three enter the draft because they are pissed over having been put on redshirt in the postseason anyways.

Experiment failed?  Or succeeded?  Both?

[ionel]

52 minutes ago, BobDole said:

So the question to ask is.... how can/will a coach exploit this? We've seen every rule possible exploited lately so we first need to figure out how we can manipulate the system then work from there.

I'm sure Carl could exploit the religious exemption, recruit/convert more Morman kids, send them on two year missions to Russia, Ukraine, the "...stans," etc.

[Formally140]

I take it back. The injury exemptions will be the hardest to overcome 

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, Formally140 said:

I take it back. The injury exemptions will be the hardest to overcome 

Why does there need to be an injury exemption? 

[Wrestleknownothing]

47 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

Imagine Calipari with some of his super frosh.

Going 31-0 in the regular season then sitting his three super frosh for the postseason. 

Having them suit up but sit the bench in actual red shirts.

Kentucky is down by six with three minutes to go in the SEC finals.  Whoever they are playing nails a three to go up by nine.

He looks over at his assistant and gives the solemn, yet assertive nod.

BOOM!  One of the super frosh yank their redshirt off and go to the table to rotate in.  Kentucky wins the SEC championship on a last second DUNK!

National Semi-finals come along.  Kentucky is down six again and once again their opponent (a different one) nails a three to go up by nine - only this time there is onky two and a half minutes to go.

Calipari with the nod again...

BLAMMO!  Superfrosh #2 yanks off his actual red shirt and checks in to thr game.

Kentucky down by two and Frosh#2 throws up a prayer to Frosh#1 and BOOM!  Dunk and a foul!  He sinks the foup and they win.

NCAA finals.  Calipari shoots down the media before the game that he is going to pull superfrosh#3's shirt.  He is confident.  Even says he may not even sit with thel courtside, but he is obviously joking.

Two minutes to go.  Down by two this time, but their opponent shoots up a three.  Gets fouled and makes it.  Puts them down six.

OMFG THERE IS THE NOD!  HE JACK NICHOLSONED THAT SUMBICH!  SUPERFROSH#3 GOES HULKAMANIAC AND SHREDS HIS SHIRT!  HE IS IN THE GAME! 

Kentucky scores 16 unanswered points in two minutes and wins by ten.

Impressive.

All three enter the draft because they are pissed over having been put on redshirt in the postseason anyways.

Experiment failed?  Or succeeded?  Both?

Who cares? I just love the writeup.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

Why does there need to be an injury exemption? 

Because we want to have nice things.

[ionel]

1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Because we want to have nice things.

I was severely injured by a breakup mid semester, cost me dearly on a mid term exam, would've been nice to get an injury exemption on that exam plus a new gf to finish out the semester, but sometimes life ain't nice.