Possible Changes to Redshirt Rules On the Way?

When perusing Footballscoop.com for updates on the coaching carousel, I came across a link to an article discussing a change to the current redshirt rule. As we know, coaches are now allowed to redshirt player(s) as long as they have appeared in only 4 games.

Per MetroNews, the current chair that oversee the oversight committee, current WooVoo Athletics Director claims that the current redshirts rule is, "bad optic for college football."

The article mentioned none other than former WooVoo head honco and current Houston football coach, Dana Holgorsen. It makes me think there is sour grapes behind the push.

MetroNews article.

I think the redshirt rule have been beneficial for many players because it gives the coaches and players chance to evaluate and get a taste of the speed of the college game. Again, as I mentioned, I think it is a case of sour grapes.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.


Sure, take it away from everyone because Holgorsen essentially used it to tank.

The Orange and Maroon you see, that's fighting on to victory.

That's why I think it's sour grape.

Trying to get that high 1st round draft pick. /s

I have often wondered what would be wrong with just giving all players 5 years of eligibility? Who would it hurt? Superstars wont likely play 5 and developmental players would still essentially red shirt.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Good point.

They'd have to adjust scholarships if they did that

Directions from Blacksburg to whoville, go north till you smell it then go east until you step in it

Not much if any. A lot of athletes are already on scholarship 5 years and there would still be a large percentage of early exits.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

How come it's always bad optics when players do something that benefits themselves?

Is it not bad optics that we pay coaches in an amatuer sport? (thank you very much Alonzo Stagg)

Is it not bad optics when a school fires a coach without cause before the end of a season? They are just giving up on that season and those student athletes.

Is it not bad optics that UGA, Bama, and Clemson spend more money per commit than they do on student athletes?

This seems like a weird hill to die on.

Something, something, Brock Hoffman...

How is it bad optics when the vast majority of casual fans (including more than few here) are largely unaware of it?

Regardless, I don't buy that the rule is going to get changed. Or even be seriously considered. This sounds like a few malcontents have planted this with a lazy, gullible writer in need of a story with the hope of getting some sort of momentum on their side.