Yeah 260 lbs Cam Meredith. That dude actually played defensive tackle for us.
Redshirt tracker...
- Thread starter HBK4life_rivals100467
- Start date
He could have been replaced and was replaced very easily. He was just another guy. You don't spend a year of eligibility for a guy to be Cam Meredith, sorry.
I don't disagree with that but it doesn't have to be all one way or the other. Here's the catch:
NU traditionally hasn't been recruiting enough 4* and 5* kids who are ready to be an impact player in year one. You need a lot of those to make the pure roster churn formula really pop.
I would say that right now, Nebraska has no choice but to be a developmental program until they prove they can be an elite recruiting program.
I'd like to see them doing all of the above. Cracking double digit 4*+ players signed per class, getting 3* kids who have that developmental potential and redshirting them, and moving on from the guys who are busts after a few years.
85 scholarships is enough to go almost 4 deep at every position. You get to be on the wrong side of the age divide and you're still 3rd or 4th at your spot...best of luck in your future endeavors.
Ok clearly I am not making myself clear. Nebraska traditionally recruiting enough 4 and 5 stars who are ready to be impact players in year one, isn't the point. The point is that you develop the players as best as you can from day one. If you can only get 3 star talent then you start from day 1 and you replace with more 3 star talent.
There seems to be an opinion that 5th year 3 star talent is somehow exponentially better than 4th year 3 star talent. There is no evidence of that being true. It doesn't matter when 3 star talent cycles out, it is still 3 star talent replaced by 3 star talent. I don't get the argument. sorry.
if you're developing from day 1, as you say, and you're continuously developing, wouldn't you be lowering your ceiling by 20% limiting that development to 4 years instead of 5?
It's another way to give yourself more bites at the apple just like having a metric ton of walk-ons. The odds of a walk-on becoming the next Jano or Mackovicka are extremely low. But if you have 60 of them instead of 10, your odds of getting one go up.
Just like we know some guys have that light switch come on a little later than others. You RS him, you give yourself more years with his light on. Nobody is saying you sit kids who could help you win right now just to sit them.
Here are the two fallacies I see people touting:
1) NU has this secret collection of world beaters who are definitely much better than the starters
2) Being out there in a game when you're not ready is much more educational than practicing when you're not ready
If you are good enough to play in more than four games and be a benefit to the team, then you don't redshirt. If you don't play in more than four games then you redshirt, and do your DAMNDEST to improve to make the two deep.
When my logic falls short is for injuries........ If you are injured then it may possibly benefit you to redshirt. With the new format, I will be curious to see what happens to the the 6th year medical redshirt that is occasionally granted by the NCAA, for reasons not clearly understood by individuals and administrations that apply for this status.
When my logic falls short is for injuries........ If you are injured then it may possibly benefit you to redshirt. With the new format, I will be curious to see what happens to the the 6th year medical redshirt that is occasionally granted by the NCAA, for reasons not clearly understood by individuals and administrations that apply for this status.
I was going more for an alternate reality situation where Suh leaves in 2008, Steinkuhler never moved over and we're forced to play a Cam Meredith type player in 2009 instead of Suh because we didn't redshirt him his freshman year.
3 star talent is hardly ever able to contribute their first year. If you don't redshirt them, you're limiting yourself to only 3 years where those players have the potential to be contributors. If you do redshirt them their first year, you get 4 years where that player has the potential to contribute. Another thing with 3 star talent is they generally don't become starter quality until they're upperclassmen. If you don't redshirt that player, you might only get 1 year of starter quality play out of that player. If you do redshirt, you would get 2 years of starter quality play out of that same player.
Going by the numbers having 2/5 years be starter quality is better than having 1/4 (1.25/5) years be starter quality. Now let's say there's no attrition and there's a 50% hit rate of becoming a starter. In a 5 year period, you have 100 players cycling through if you don't redshirt and 80 players cycling through if you do redshirt. According to the hit rate, in a 5 year period 50 of your players will be starter quality without redshirting and 40 players will be starter quality with redshirting. But the number of players isn't important, the number of starter quality years is what's most important. In a 5 year period, with redshirting you'll get 80 starter quality years vs 62.5 starter quality years without redshirting. I know you love seeing the numbers Tuco, so I thought I'd show how redshirting can be better from a mathematical standpoint than not redshirting. The model isn't perfect by any means, but I think it shows a semi realistic view of how redshirting can be better than not redshirting.