Would you support moving to freshman/varsity setup in CFB?

Submitted by 1464 on
I just finished reading an article about how Michigan cancelled its series with Notre Dame due to their insistence on playing freshmen (conference rules prohibited Michigan from doing likewise).

This is obviously hypothetical, but would you support going back to a two team setup for football?

I actually think it would be pretty cool. Instead of redshirts, players get to show themselves in game situations the first year. You could keep scholarship limits, which would give walk-ons a much greater opportunity to succeed. You'd get twice as much football, as well as a glimpse into the future. It'd also give CFB a much more academic vibe, sort of reminiscent of high school JV.

The cons would be twice the travel and equipment costs that would burden smaller teams. And if freshmen were completely ineligible, we'd lose some awesome efforts, i.e. Rashan Gary this year.

But if it were aligned like this: You have one year of freshman eligibility and 4 years varsity. If you're called up, you still only have 4 years. EDIT: I didn't make this explicit enough. If a kid is good enough to play, he'd immediately start his 4 years on varsity. I think that's the major contention with this idea.

An I the only one who thinks this would be awesome? If we watch HS All American games, then this would be a no brainer.
MGoBoard
Football
hypotheticals

buddha

November 4th, 2016 at 2:12 PM ^

Greed??? Not sure if I'd go that far. An exhibition game is pretty standard across sports for the purpose of shaking off some rust, testing the players, and getting into the necessary mentality. Also, not sure if this is your argument or not, but I really don't think the decline in the NFL is due to preseason! I'd blame the decline almost entirely on Goodell's management



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 10/08/2009

MGoPoints: 5034

ckersh74

November 4th, 2016 at 12:58 PM ^

I think we'd be better off modifying the redshirt rules a smidge. Example: a first year player would be able to play in one game in the first 25% of the season (one of the first three games) and maintain his redshirt. Anything else burns a year of eligibility. I have not thought this through. I have no clue whether this is a good idea or not. I'm just thinking on the fly here.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 41769

Blarvey

November 4th, 2016 at 1:08 PM ^

My impression lately (and this may not be the case) is that the last 3-5 years we have seen more freshmen come in ready to play who are better than many vets. I am not talking about the Rashan Garys and Jabrill Peppers of college football, I mean less-touted recruits that can step in immediately (Mason Cole, Devonte Fields, Corey Davis, Davis Webb, Arden Key, Gareon Conley). Maybe it's conditioning, year round football, camps, or something else but whatever the case, I don't see as muych of a need for freshmen to hide back on the depth chart and develop unless it is somebody that is undersized or likely to take some time to develop.

Joined: 11/21/2011

MGoPoints: 3473

Perkis-Size Me

November 4th, 2016 at 1:34 PM ^

I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, especially if every freshman could still earn the opportunity to make the varsity team. Let's be honest: relegating freshman Jabrill Peppers or freshman Rashan Gary to the rest of the population just wouldn't be fair. 

But my only real argument against it is you learn a lot about your players / employees / students when you throw them into the deep end. Put them out on the big stage and see what they can do. Of course if  they're freshman, you expect them to make mistakes. They won't be perfect. But how the hell else are you going to learn? 

Joined: 11/30/2011

MGoPoints: 106314

mgowild

November 4th, 2016 at 2:14 PM ^

You'd see more injuries. Obviously players can get hurt any time but having your freshmen play a full or even half a schedule puts them at a much greater risk than having them redshirt.

Joined: 08/10/2016

MGoPoints: 1631

BlueHills

November 4th, 2016 at 2:39 PM ^

I went to Michigan in the days when there was a freshman team and a varsity team. Obviously, there were more scholarships available back then.

There were a couple of advantages to having a freshman team; as Harbaugh says, you learn football by playing football. Younger players got to do that, and develop a little more. The games were no more or less exciting when only sophs and upperclassmen played, however.

Having a freshman team did allow younger players who needed it the opportunity to become acclimated to college, something that was difficult for many players in the days before there was so much academic planning/assistance given to team members. Early enrollment offers many of those advantages now.

I've often wondered if playing freshmen on teams affects injuries, whether due to increased training and strain on players' bodies while they're still in late adolescence, or whether earlier playing affects in-game injuries. It'd be interesting to see if there was a significant difference in inury rates. I have no data, nor am I suggesting that this is a thing, just curious.

Bottom line, I'm neither for it, nor against it. I'd simply like to see some data.

 

Joined: 10/31/2010

MGoPoints: 7468

drzoidburg

November 4th, 2016 at 3:55 PM ^

No i would not. This isn't high school, where the difference in size between freshman/senior is massive, and not to mention they're minors. The only purpose of segregating the freshmen would be academic and adjustment off the field, so you'd have to sit them out. They could lift weights and practice in the summer, but that's it. That is something i might favor, but let's be real, 9/10 are here for nfl tryouts only. From their view, it's asking them to sign away a year of their life. From the fans' view, it means the really good players like Peppers will be around a year less. A big reason i don't watch basketball is the players are gone before you know em

Joined: 09/20/2015

MGoPoints: 2220

Crisler 71

November 4th, 2016 at 4:22 PM ^

I was also at Michigan back in the 60s, when the NCAA didn't allow freshmen to play varsity, the freshman team only had one or two games, and they were more like scrimmages.  They played in Ferry Field and there was nobody in the stand, but friends & family.  The idea was not to protect the freshman from injury as much as it was to let them get acclimated to the academics of college. I think there were only two or three coaches and it was mostly focused on fundamentals.  But I believe the scholarship limit was 100 or 110 back then.  O course, that was when sutdent athletes were STUDENT athletes.

Also, at least in football, the B1G did not redshirt.

Joined: 05/23/2011

MGoPoints: 964

JamieH

November 4th, 2016 at 4:32 PM ^

There is no reason freshman shouldn't play on the real football team.  If a kid is overwhelmed academically, then take a damn redshirt year. 

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

Don

November 5th, 2016 at 5:09 AM ^

"Keen was also a member of the Michigan football coaching staff for 33 years, serving as an assistant coach to legendary U-M bosses Fielding Yost, Fritz Crisler and Bennie Oosterbaan. Keen guided the Wolverines' 150-pound football team to two national titles during the only two seasons Michigan fielded the team (1947, '48), and he is credited with introducing the T-formation to the Wolverine program. Keen's assistant coach with the 150-pound team was George Allen, former head coach of the NFL Washington Redskins, and among his former players were Jerry Burns, former head coach of the NFL Minnesota Vikings, and Gerald Ford, the 38th president of the United States."

It's now called sprint football, and the weight limit is now 172.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_football

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148565