News Article: Players can play up to 4 football games a year and still redshirt per new NCAA rule

LSUgrad2BamaDad said:

To clarify, I’m not against the rule. My point is that while it may afford the luxury of a 5th year for some, it has to be at the expense of a recruiting spot due to the 85 scholarship limit. I realize this may not be a problem at Alabama since how many 5th year guys do you ever have, but for most schools it could make for a challenge here and there.

Click to expand...

That makes sense, but I think that most schools would just sit these guys now, so I don't see that as much of a change. If they were a 5 year player before, they will still be a 5 year player. I don't see many guys going from 4 year players to 5 year players because of this, but I could be wrong.

KrAzY3 said:

Right, I think you get the guys you have a lot of faith in some early playing time, and then as the season progresses you can review your options.

This is really huge for Alabama with their depth though. They can now strategically deploy true freshman, rather than just either work to preserve their redshirt or play them if someone gets hurt. They can now promise to play pretty much any incoming true freshman.

Click to expand...

I had not thought of it in that way, but you are right. Now the 5 stars won't have to ride the wood for a year. This will help the negative recruiting too, about "you won't get to play."

Looking at the schedule, Some freshmen will get a chance to play in first two games: Louisville and Arkansas State. Saban might try to use those game to determine who should redshirt right away or needs two more game to evaluate and possible save last two games for them. Also, This will work out well for Jalen... They might not try and play Jalen until the last 4 games if Tua is struggling and If everything goes well for Jalen, Redshirt and graduate as transfer and play 2 somewhere... and still play in 4 games this year.

CrimsonForce said:

So now Jalen can stay and play in up to 4 games if Tua gets hurt and still redshirt then transfer at the end of the season and play immediately next year. Problem solved. Boom..

Click to expand...

With Jalen it's a really tricky situation though, because there are some things that he needs to improve on. While I think under normal circumstance, Hurts would be the best backup QB in the nation, if he hasn't played at all throughout most of the year, it begs the question of if a rusty Hurts is a better option than Mac?

To me, the way to approach it probably would still be to let Hurts play in the first couple of games in the season. If that goes like we all expect it to go, it might be time to shut Hurts down. Then, however he probably slips to third string. It could become a break glass in case of emergency type situation. Alabama would actually have two guys redshirting under that scenario, both capable of providing minutes in case of emergencies (or in the case of the newest addition, may be just mop up duty late a couple of times).

The key thing though is this does give Nick Saban a selling point for keeping Hurts around. He can say hey look, you can keep your redshirt if you're not going to be starting, and that does help preserve Alabama's depth.

The number of strategic moves Saban can make now with this rule though are really impressive. He can dial up the motivation on these guys to. For instance, in a big blowout he has the option now to replace several important contributors (to protect from injury) with guys who are redshirting. He can try out guys he wouldn't have tried out otherwise, for example last year he redshirted a place kicker. This means every guy on scholarship now understands he can go into games at pretty much any time, this will be interesting.

KrAzY3 said:

With Jalen it's a really tricky situation though, because there are some things that he needs to improve on. While I think under normal circumstance, Hurts would be the best backup QB in the nation, if he hasn't played at all throughout most of the year, it begs the question of if a rusty Hurts is a better option than Mac?

To me, the way to approach it probably would still be to let Hurts play in the first couple of games in the season. If that goes like we all expect it to go, it might be time to shut Hurts down. Then, however he probably slips to third string. It could become a break glass in case of emergency type situation. Alabama would actually have two guys redshirting under that scenario, both capable of providing minutes in case of emergencies (or in the case of the newest addition, may be just mop up duty late a couple of times).

The key thing though is this does give Nick Saban a selling point for keeping Hurts around. He can say hey look, you can keep your redshirt if you're not going to be starting, and that does help preserve Alabama's depth.

The number of strategic moves Saban can make now with this rule though are really impressive. He can dial up the motivation on these guys to. For instance, in a big blowout he has the option now to replace several important contributors (to protect from injury) with guys who are redshirting. He can try out guys he wouldn't have tried out otherwise, for example last year he redshirted a place kicker. This means every guy on scholarship now understands he can go into games at pretty much any time, this will be interesting.

Click to expand...

I remember Auburn, Clemson and the first half with Georgia. I had rather have a QB that can pass, rusty or untested.

I'm curious what Coach Saban has to say about this rule change....

Redwood Forrest said:

I remember Auburn, Clemson and the first half with Georgia. I had rather have a QB that can pass, rusty or untested.

Click to expand...

Ok, so toss Layne Hatcher into a big game like that?

Bazza said:

I'm curious what Coach Saban has to say about this rule change....

Click to expand...

He said a while back that players should not lose their red shirt for very limited play, so I expect that this pleases him.

No doubt it's better than the old rule.

I particularly like this rule in light of the increasing number of players sitting out bowl games. It might make the bowl season mean something again.

B1GTide said:

That makes sense, but I think that most schools would just sit these guys now, so I don't see that as much of a change. If they were a 5 year player before, they will still be a 5 year player. I don't see many guys going from 4 year players to 5 year players because of this, but I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

The biggest help will be in depth. If you have a rash of injuries, as we did last year, we can try a couple of Redshirts to rest our starters. Could be a couple of Redshirts will be good enough to pass on the Redshirt year.

KrAzY3 said:

Ok, so toss Layne Hatcher into a big game like that?

Click to expand...

If Layne Hatcher can pass enough to keep the D honest, they YES.

Redwood Forrest said:

If Layne Hatcher can pass enough to keep the D honest, they YES.

Click to expand...

You specified untested... so how the heck do you find out if he can or can't until the time comes? It might not seem like it, but there are actually other priorities. For instance can he run the offense? Can he protect the football?

No bench is going to be lined with guys capable of keeping elite defenses honest via the passing game in either case. There is this fixation on what it takes to beat elite defenses, and I get it, with some fans there's this tendency to see past the rest of the games because they win them so reliably. But, there's a reason they win them so reliably, and it is because they do a lot of things to avoid putting the outcome in jeopardy. A quarterback can just as easily put the outcome in doubt with his mistakes as he can keep a defense honest with his passing.

KrAzY3 said:

You specified untested... so how the heck do you find out if he can or can't until the time comes? It might not seem like it, but there are actually other priorities. For instance can he run the offense? Can he protect the football?

No bench is going to be lined with guys capable of keeping elite defenses honest via the passing game in either case. There is this fixation on what it takes to beat elite defenses, and I get it, with some fans there's this tendency to see past the rest of the games because they win them so reliably. But, there's a reason they win them so reliably, and it is because they do a lot of things to avoid putting the outcome in jeopardy. A quarterback can just as easily put the outcome in doubt with his mistakes as he can keep a defense honest with his passing.

Click to expand...

I do this a lot. What I meant by untested was hasn't played in a big game, like Tua last year. I knew what I meant but no one else did. But I still would say yes even if he had never played a game when the handwriting is on the wall -- like in last years Auburn game. We wouldn't have been any worse off with an untried QB, unless getting beat worse counts.

I am wondering what this will do to the preseason ranking systems. Most have some type of recruiting data built in. Or, it may be like the early signing day, may not change much at all.

Redwood Forrest said:

We wouldn't have been any worse off with an untried QB, unless getting beat worse counts.

Click to expand...

One reason I've been rather entrenched on the issue, is because I don't see a choice being good or bad based on the outcome, but rather based on the principles behind the choice. With the Hurts scenario at Alabama, it is easy to judge things after the fact, since we know the outcome (and I will repeat my assertion that Tua should be and will be the starter). But, that doesn't make the choices made previously bad ones, nor does it mean similar choices in the future would be bad ones either.

I was looking over some stats, and the worst three game stretch of any Nick Saban Alabama QB was Greg McElroy in 2009. He wasn't exactly inexperienced at that point either, he was a redshirt junior (so older than Hurts is now) playing in his 11th game when he started having issues. This wasn't the toughest part of the schedule either, but against Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Tennessee (two of those games at home) he threw for a combined 359 yards 0 touchdowns, 2 interceptions, and a long of 22. He also ran for 11 yards on 11 attempts for 0 TDs.

This poor stretch culminated in a 120 yard performance against Tennessee where he threw for a long of 19 yards and the offense only mustered 12 points. The only reason they won the Tennessee game was due to the Cody blocks, it had nothing to do with McElroy playing well. Now, you might counter that this was different, because they didn't have Tua... but Alabama did have AJ. Make no mistake. McElroy had a dreadful stretch, as bad a period passing the ball as anyone in recent memory, and this probably should have cost Alabama not only a game against a hated rival, but a championship as well.

Now, Nick Saban could have seen the Tennessee game coming and started AJ. He could have, but that could have cost Alabama a championship. We know how great AJ would perform later on down the line, but there's no certainty he would have in that moment. Saban stuck with his QB and it turned out ok, but it was pretty darn close wasn't it? That wasn't the end of it either, McElroy was hurt for the Texas game and put up nearly no production. He threw for 58 yards on the championship game, but yet again Saban stuck with McElroy and he has his only undefeated season to show for it. Now, the truth is that might mirror Hurts' freshman season more than anything else, the only real difference being there was no knocking Watson out of the game or a pair of miraculous special teams play, but it also informs the choice that Saban made last year. Do you go with the unproven but very talented guy, or do you stick with your limited but more experienced quarterback? Here's the thing, AJ was ready to go for the championship game to, and if Saban had to he was ready to make that switch as well... The key here though, and we have to remember this, is if Saban put AJ into the Tennessee game or the Texas game, the outcome could have been worse. Alabama could have lost those games, so, in retrospect we have some good outcomes and on the other bad outcomes, but with very little difference in the decision making.

That aside, the other thing worth addressing is the notion that unproven bench QB is going to be able to perform at a high level. If we put being able to pass downfield against an elite defense as the standard, the truth is most simply won't be able to. Alabama usually doesn't have an AJ or a Tua on the bench, and even if they do it doesn't mean they're ready to go. To give an example, the recent past has included guys like Alec Morris, David Cornwell, Parker McLeod, and Cooper Bateman. In the case of Parker McLeod, he's never thrown a pass in college. Bateman is a good example though, because he is actually one of the few times Saban really did throw the unproven backup out there, and it cost Alabama a game. It wasn't just that though, Bateman's career long is 31 yards and I'm pretty sure that didn't come in the air. From what I can tell he's not just limited in the downfield passing game, he literally can't do it. So, remember when you talk unproven and untested, the odds of that guy being able to get it done against an elite defense are actually pretty slim and that can lead to a loss more easily than playing a proven quarterback.

KrAzY3 said:

That aside, the other thing worth addressing is the notion that unproven bench QB is going to be able to perform at a high level. If we put being able to pass downfield against an elite defense as the standard, the truth is most simply won't be able to. Alabama usually doesn't have an AJ or a Tua on the bench, and even if they do it doesn't mean they're ready to go. To give an example, the recent past has included guys like Alec Morris, David Cornwell, Parker McLeod, and Cooper Bateman. In the case of Parker McLeod, he's never thrown a pass in college. Bateman is a good example though, because he is actually one of the few times Saban really did throw the unproven backup out there, and it cost Alabama a game. It wasn't just that though, Bateman's career long is 31 yards and I'm pretty sure that didn't come in the air. From what I can tell he's not just limited in the downfield passing game, he literally can't do it. So, remember when you talk unproven and untested, the odds of that guy being able to get it done against an elite defense are actually pretty slim and that can lead to a loss more easily than playing a proven quarterback.

Click to expand...

I guess this is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Do you play the untested or the tried an failed passer (against an elite defense). An elite defense calls for all the weapons. But what if the backup can't do it either? I just think the untested deserves a shot when clearly the game is going in the loss category.

Are we sure it’s any 4 games or just the first 4?

colbysullivan said:

Are we sure it’s any 4 games or just the first 4?

Click to expand...

I read any 4 games.

This rule highly benefits us because we can play kids for up to 4 games, they stay happy and we get to see how they play in a game setting.