Redshirting vs not redshirting

[oldjar07]

that is a made up stat. If you always have 11 quality starters on the field for offense and 11 quality starters on the field for defense then how long they’re at the school is irrelevant. In fact for depth, I have 50 players to choose from rather than 40.

You can normalize my model to show that, but just because a player is starting doesn't necessarily mean that player is playing at a starter quality level. Just because you don't seem to understand it doesn't mean my model based on starter quality isn't as valid as your model based on number of players cycling through.

 

[oldjar07]

You are making the assumption that just because a player is there and as redshirted that they automatically provide “quality” depth.

I never said that.

 

[oldjar07]

why do you continue to make the statement that these players won’t be ready their freshman year? I have not stated they needed to be ready their freshman year. Although some will. I have said repeatedly in this thread that the freshman year can still be used for development and adding weight. it’s just that they’re called sophomores instead of red shirt freshman in year 2. Then you get three years for that player to contribute.

There's a difference between a contributor and a starter quality player. In college football, a starter quality player determines the success of a team much more than just a contributor would. By the time they're sophomores, some players may contribute but that doesn't mean they're a starter quality players. Players usually don't become starter quality until they're juniors or seniors.

 

[CheeseRunza_rivals]

I posted this in another thread, but after reading this thread, it appears that this is a better place for my thoughts.....

Here is my opinion. I hope by the time that Lynn, Banks and Anderson are in their 3rd year, that there are 3 guys younger than them that come in and beat them out. Then we can have 3 "old" dudes that are good enough to be backups and not just starting because they are RS Jr or RS Sr's.

I have written my opinion on RS many times. My best explanation was as a member of another site and I can't seem to locate how I wrote it. But it goes something like this.

Numbers are the key. You have to figure out a way to cycle out enough non contributing players in 4 years or less so that you can continue to recruit 25 players every year. If you redshirt every freshman, you will never get to that point. You will only be able recruit 18-21 players per year. So what happens is that you find yourself sitting with noncontributing players on your roster, with nothing but the hope that they will be productive as RS Jrs and RS Srs. My opinion is that is a silly way to manage a roster.

To me I would only redshirt walkons, and guys I took a flyer on.

My theory is this:

if a guy is a high 4 star or 5 star player, I am not redshirting because if he is as good as advertised, he won't be here all 5 years. If he is not as good as advertised, I want him to just use his 4 years and be gone so another scholarship opens up in 4 years rather than 5.

If a player is a mid- high 3 star to 4 star, I am not redshirting because, IF I do my job as a recruiter, I replace that same level player with at least that same level player every year. Also, if I do my job as a developmental coach, I can get the next player to be as good as the one before him.

If a guy is unranked to a mid 3 star, I would probably redshirt because I saw an undeveloped talent that I am not giving a scholarship to or a player that I can develop enough to provide depth when they are Jrs and Srs. But, again, if I am doing my job as a recruiter, the number of scholarships should be low.

Each year there are, on average, 40-44 players that see any significant playing time. Turning the roster over and doing my best to replace the departing player with a better player is my job as a coach.

If I am able to recruit 25 per year, I get 100 guys per 4 year cycle, If I redshirt a majority of every class, I only get to 68-80 over the same period, depending on attrition. The more players you can sign, the better chance you have of finding more difference makers.

Good discussion

I think we’ve been through this before, but I thought I’d add my 2 cents again. While I don’t disagree with your premise that maximizing the number of recruits cycled through can have benefits, I think that the theory is also dependent on the quality of recruits. If there is little difference between your top 20 recruits and your 21-25 recruits than I think it makes sense. What I mean is, is if your hit rate for your 21-25 recruits (meaning finding a starter or someone playing meaningful minutes) is equal to your top 20 recruits, then by all means, recruit them and get them on campus. Realistically, for most programs, those players are probably reaches or projects. In that case, it might be better to recruit 20 players every year for 5 years so that your team is composed of your top 20 recruits, instead of 20% of your team being your number 21-25 recruits when you are recruiting on a 4 year cycle.

For instance, for simplicity lets assume that a team can consistently recruit annually as follows:

5-stars 1
4 stars 10
3 stars 12
2 stars 2

In this case, over 4 years your team is comprised of 44 “blue chip” players and 56 3 star and below players. Of course, this is not taking into account the 85 scholarship limit for clarity sake. Now, assuming you are not going to take a 2 star player over a 5 star player or even a 3 star over one of your 4 star recruits, then over 5 years taking 20 recruits a year, you would have 55 “blue chip” players and 45 3 star players. If one is to believe in the star ratings and the blue chip ratio, then it seems like it might make sense to recruit over 5 years.

Now the drawback of this would be that 20% of the team is redshirting, meaning that only 80% are available to play compared of 100% if you are recruiting on a 4 year cycle. So if you are OSU, Alabama, etc. and landing a couple 5 stars, a boatload of 4 stars and a few high 3 stars, then maximize how many recruits you cycle through to hopefully land some of those difference makers by sheer numbers. For most everyone else, the chance of finding the difference makers is better within their top 20 recruits than within their 21-25 recruits.

 

[dand84]

So for the pro-redshirt crowd and the pro-noshirt crowd (shirts and skins?), how many players would you redshirt? I assume, Tuco, you would redshirt some since you are unlikely to have a perfect hit rate? I assume oldjar and others, you would not redshirt every single player since you'd have to process a LOT of players to stay at 85?

Fr.     RFr.     So.     Jr.     Sr.     Total     Process Out Per Year
25     25         25      25     25     125      40         (redshirt all)

       25         25      25     25     100      15         (redshirt none)

 

[oldjar07]

So for the pro-redshirt crowd and the pro-noshirt crowd (shirts and skins?), how many players would you redshirt? I assume, Tuco, you would redshirt some since you are unlikely to have a perfect hit rate? I assume oldjar and others, you would not redshirt every single player since you'd have to process a LOT of players to stay at 85?

Fr.     RFr.     So.     Jr.     Sr.     Total     Process Out Per Year
25     25         25      25     25     125      40         (redshirt all)

       25         25      25     25     100      15         (redshirt none)

If we recruited 25 every year, we would have to process out 40 players over a 5 year period, so 8 per year. So far Frost has shown he's willing to process those kinds of numbers. Is he going to want to continue to do that? Probably not in those numbers, but realistically probably not every player is going to redshirt either.

 

[oldjar07]

I think we’ve been through this before, but I thought I’d add my 2 cents again. While I don’t disagree with your premise that maximizing the number of recruits cycled through can have benefits, I think that the theory is also dependent on the quality of recruits. If there is little difference between your top 20 recruits and your 21-25 recruits than I think it makes sense. What I mean is, is if your hit rate for your 21-25 recruits (meaning finding a starter or someone playing meaningful minutes) is equal to your top 20 recruits, then by all means, recruit them and get them on campus. Realistically, for most programs, those players are probably reaches or projects. In that case, it might be better to recruit 20 players every year for 5 years so that your team is composed of your top 20 recruits, instead of 20% of your team being your number 21-25 recruits when you are recruiting on a 4 year cycle.

For instance, for simplicity lets assume that a team can consistently recruit annually as follows:

5-stars 1
4 stars 10
3 stars 12
2 stars 2

In this case, over 4 years your team is comprised of 44 “blue chip” players and 56 3 star and below players. Of course, this is not taking into account the 85 scholarship limit for clarity sake. Now, assuming you are not going to take a 2 star player over a 5 star player or even a 3 star over one of your 4 star recruits, then over 5 years taking 20 recruits a year, you would have 55 “blue chip” players and 45 3 star players. If one is to believe in the star ratings and the blue chip ratio, then it seems like it might make sense to recruit over 5 years.

Now the drawback of this would be that 20% of the team is redshirting, meaning that only 80% are available to play compared of 100% if you are recruiting on a 4 year cycle. So if you are OSU, Alabama, etc. and landing a couple 5 stars, a boatload of 4 stars and a few high 3 stars, then maximize how many recruits you cycle through to hopefully land some of those difference makers by sheer numbers. For most everyone else, the chance of finding the difference makers is better within their top 20 recruits than within their 21-25 recruits.

Exactly recruiting 25 players over 20 players isn't going to make it more likely to find a Wandale Robinson type player. You're going to take Wandale Robinson no matter how small your recruiting class is.

 

[oldjar07]

I think we’ve been through this before, but I thought I’d add my 2 cents again. While I don’t disagree with your premise that maximizing the number of recruits cycled through can have benefits, I think that the theory is also dependent on the quality of recruits. If there is little difference between your top 20 recruits and your 21-25 recruits than I think it makes sense. What I mean is, is if your hit rate for your 21-25 recruits (meaning finding a starter or someone playing meaningful minutes) is equal to your top 20 recruits, then by all means, recruit them and get them on campus. Realistically, for most programs, those players are probably reaches or projects. In that case, it might be better to recruit 20 players every year for 5 years so that your team is composed of your top 20 recruits, instead of 20% of your team being your number 21-25 recruits when you are recruiting on a 4 year cycle.

For instance, for simplicity lets assume that a team can consistently recruit annually as follows:

5-stars 1
4 stars 10
3 stars 12
2 stars 2

In this case, over 4 years your team is comprised of 44 “blue chip” players and 56 3 star and below players. Of course, this is not taking into account the 85 scholarship limit for clarity sake. Now, assuming you are not going to take a 2 star player over a 5 star player or even a 3 star over one of your 4 star recruits, then over 5 years taking 20 recruits a year, you would have 55 “blue chip” players and 45 3 star players. If one is to believe in the star ratings and the blue chip ratio, then it seems like it might make sense to recruit over 5 years.

Now the drawback of this would be that 20% of the team is redshirting, meaning that only 80% are available to play compared of 100% if you are recruiting on a 4 year cycle. So if you are OSU, Alabama, etc. and landing a couple 5 stars, a boatload of 4 stars and a few high 3 stars, then maximize how many recruits you cycle through to hopefully land some of those difference makers by sheer numbers. For most everyone else, the chance of finding the difference makers is better within their top 20 recruits than within their 21-25 recruits.

I think even those top programs would be better off if they redshirted more too. It seems to be a point of pride for them to send players to the NFL early, so they don't even try to get players to stay instead of going to the NFL draft. I think some teams are able to establish a culture of redshirting and starting 5th year players and sacrificing for the team so they're better able to convince players to stay rather than leave for the NFL. Teams like this are able to get an extra year of great play out of a player rather than worrying about how you're going to replace that player. Even if you recruit at an elite level, there could be a good chance that you have noone on the roster able to play at that same level. How many players did we have in the 80's or 90's who could have left early, but chose to stay an extra year even if they didn't have to? I think that's a huge factor in how good those teams became.

 

[uberism1111]

Some programs tried the 3-year plan and it didn't work for them. Clemson took the opposite route and was redshirting most of their freshman and are now king of college football.

 

[oldjar07]

So for the pro-redshirt crowd and the pro-noshirt crowd (shirts and skins?), how many players would you redshirt? I assume, Tuco, you would redshirt some since you are unlikely to have a perfect hit rate? I assume oldjar and others, you would not redshirt every single player since you'd have to process a LOT of players to stay at 85?

Fr.     RFr.     So.     Jr.     Sr.     Total     Process Out Per Year
25     25         25      25     25     125      40         (redshirt all)

       25         25      25     25     100      15         (redshirt none)

By the way I'm not for redshirting every player. Wandale Robinson was obviously ready to play this year. Due to depth issues, I don't think Rahmir Johnson should have been redshirted. And yes there are even some players that are so bad and probably not ever going to see the field that it's not worth redshirting them, though that begs the question of why did you recruit that player in the first place. But I think for the most part, if a player isn't able to play their first year but has the potential to contribute at some point, I think it's silly not to redshirt that player. You shouldn't not redshirt that player just to follow some silly philosophy to cycle as many players as you can through. That's not to mention you could follow that same philosophy even if you do redshirt players because you can process players out that aren't cutting it. There's no downside I see to redshirting most freshman while if you don't redshirt you have the major downside of cutting potentially a great player's career a year short.

 

[dand84]

Yah, I am trying to find a reasonable number. As shown, you have to process 8 per class if you redshirt everyone or simply recruit fewer players. Tuco's argument has you processing around 4 per class. Since you won't redshirt everyone, I think that number will be closer to 6 per class. Not a lot difference in those numbers when you look at it that way.