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

1464

November 4th, 2016 at 12:30 PM ^

I can all but guarantee you can find 50 former HS players that want a crack at walking on. Add in 25 scholarships, and you have plenty. Level of play suffers, sure, but that's to be expected. People still go to HS games. As to your second point, if a player is good enough, no reason to hold them back.

Joined: 06/21/2010

MGoPoints: 37173

Mr Miggle

November 4th, 2016 at 1:20 PM ^

As far as coaches are concerned, the goal would be to give better opportunities for your freshmen to develop, not to give fans twice as many games to watch.

Who do you want coaching your scholarship freshmen? I'd think it would be your regular coaches. Who do you want coaching an additional 50+ freshman walkons? I don't think you want to give your coaches that extra job. Would your freshmen be better off on the scout team, practicing with varsity players or practicing against a bunch of freshman walkons? I think that's a no-brainer.

For this to have a chance to work, I think you have to make freshmen ineligible, otherwise you'd just have too few scholarship players on the freshman team. I doubt many are in favor of that. Nobody is going to have 25 scholarship players on their freshman team. How many would Harbaugh have?

Joined: 10/07/2010

MGoPoints: 47530

LSAClassOf2000

November 4th, 2016 at 2:51 PM ^

I can say that, as a Lions fan, once you have finished navigating DABDA - however long that might take one - then it becomes a little easier to go to games and yet somehow divorce yourself from what your preferred expectations for the team would be. It's the only reason I can gripe about Jim Caldwell but somehow let myself watch (or go) to Ford Field. I shouldn't do this to myself, it isn't healthy, but being a Lions fan never really has been that. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130561

UMAmaizinBlue

November 4th, 2016 at 12:20 PM ^

Back in the day, this might've been to protect freshman. Today, athletes are much bigger, stronger, and likely better conditioned than players in the past. Freshman come into college a year (or sometimes less) away from playing and competing professionally. Stunting a freshman's chance to show his skills against the big boys when he's able to do so isn't fair to the young men who can win spots on a roster in a meritocracy like Michigan. 

 

See Especially: Rashan Gary (that dude doesn't belong on a freshman team) 

Joined: 09/23/2009

MGoPoints: 36271

Tuebor

November 4th, 2016 at 12:21 PM ^

Sounds interesting, but in addition to the cons you've already mentioned think about the coaching implications.  Would coaching staffs want to call two games?  Would the freshman team have its own set of coaches?

Joined: 03/14/2011

MGoPoints: 17467

Bleedmaizeblue

November 4th, 2016 at 12:23 PM ^

This is a stupid idea. I've honestly always thought that HS should only have varsity level and just a larger roster. My HS had 3 HS Football teams, and it was stupid. Just have 1 and play the best players. Don't limit the years players can play football because they are freshman.

Joined: 07/11/2013

MGoPoints: 2919

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

November 4th, 2016 at 12:32 PM ^

Don't limit the years players can play football because they are freshman.

Logically speaking, more teams means more players can play football, not fewer.  That is, it's the exact opposite of a limit.  I'm quite sure the best freshman players at your HS played JV or even varsity.  Our HS had freshman, JV, and varsity baseball teams, and I'm sure as hell glad they did because I got to play for a lot longer than I would've if they had only one team.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 41586

EastCoast Esq.

November 4th, 2016 at 12:25 PM ^

I assume that was back in the days of unlimited scholarships? There is NO way you could field proper JV and Varsity teams today with the scholarship limits in place.

And if you remove the limits, you are majorly damaging non-elite school programs since Michigan and Notre Dame could take as many prospects as they want and let them compete.

If I'm wrong, please tell me.

Joined: 07/16/2012

MGoPoints: 22932

Bo Schemheckler

November 4th, 2016 at 12:26 PM ^

I could get behind this as long as deserving freshman were allowed to play varsity. I would also be for it if it meant we get a whole extra coaching staff to help Coach up the young kids down the depth chart

Joined: 09/04/2013

MGoPoints: 37198

1464

November 4th, 2016 at 12:52 PM ^

Nice snark. Since we're getting all demonstrative in this bitch, let me go ahead and be petty back at you. Learn about apostrophes. On top of that, amount is used when it is basically impossible to define a number, or when individual items are grouped into a homogenous larger thing. Think amount of sand on a beach. Number is used when you can quantify individual things. Plus, on top of all of that, using "anyways" is as annoying as saying Meijer's. You're better than that. See? Isn't being annoying fun?

Joined: 06/21/2010

MGoPoints: 37173

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

November 4th, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^

Eh, I don't think so.  Part of what makes football so cool is its scarcity.  It's a short season and you play once a week.  You have all week to gloat or stew, depending.  And by the same token, one thing football is doing to turn everyone off to it is saturating everyone with it.  So suddenly doubling the amount of football is just watering it down.

I mean, the comparison to HS all-American games is ironic, considering that itself is a symptom of the oversaturation of football.  And it's one thing to see the year's best HS players - I'm never interested in it, but some are - but Thursday night Georgia State vs. Arkansas State is lame enough** without foisting the JV squads on us too.

**Seriously, I had this game on for a little bit last night.  They made damn sure not to show the stands on TV. 

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 41586

The Maizer

November 4th, 2016 at 12:50 PM ^

I agree completely with this. Adding competitive freshman football would dilute the best parts of CFB. I don't want to split my attention between two teams and I don't want other teams' fans to be able to have something to potentially point to if our real team beats them.

Also, there would be an enormous parity issue. Compare our 2016 recruiting class (hypothetical freshman team) to our opponents' classes this year. That would not be good football.

Joined: 08/07/2015

MGoPoints: 10228

1464

November 4th, 2016 at 12:46 PM ^

I certainly think that's the best argument against it, which is why it's a good idea. If you take that logic into work with you, you'll never improve on the status quo. It works, so let's not bother to improve it.

Joined: 06/21/2010

MGoPoints: 37173

ijohnb

November 4th, 2016 at 1:56 PM ^

just disagree that it would be an improvement.  There are many true freshman that are ready to play.  The ones that redshirt get to practice, watch film, workout and improve to become contributors.  Your suggestion really does not do anything to improve upon that but needlessly increases costs and poses logistical challenges for academics, coaches, game sites, etc., and also likely increases the chance of a needless injury in a meaningless "game."  I just don't think it is a particularly good idea with a lot of down side.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

BlueinIowa

November 4th, 2016 at 12:34 PM ^

I'm in favor of having a freshmen game or two for those that aren't ready to complete. Look at guys like David Long, Lavert Hill or Dymonye Thomas back in the day and tell me some consistent pt wouldn't be good for their development. Logistics clearly would need to be worked out (maybe games must be played in first three weeks of B1G play).

Joined: 08/01/2013

MGoPoints: 42

trustBlue

November 4th, 2016 at 1:42 PM ^

I think this is the best version of the idea. Having a full, season-long JV team seems like a bit much, but having a freshman-only team that could play a handful of scrimmage-type games against other schools while maintaining redshirt elibigility seems like a win for everybody - young guys get to develop, fan get to see a glimpse of the future players, etc. Coaching for the game could be used to give younger coaches experience running the freshman team for a few games (e.g. Drevno as "head coach", Jay Harbaugh as OC, etc.)

Joined: 04/14/2014

MGoPoints: 8167

BlueinIowa

November 4th, 2016 at 5:53 PM ^

I would envision these as exhibitions, similar to our ball exhibitions. This still provides red shirts or three-deep guys the ability to test their abilities against other people. The rosters would likely be only 40-50 athletes, but for guys like an Onwenu, he could get another 120 snaps against live competition. I do think this would have to be done vs other conference foes compared to non-conference travel and also lower level comp. there'd be a lot of walk ons playing that is for certain.

Joined: 08/01/2013

MGoPoints: 42

Mr. Yost

November 4th, 2016 at 12:44 PM ^

I'll pass, but I would be in favor of a spring game versus another real team that allows early enrollees to play.

I'd allow teams to play as long or as short of games as they want (some teams aren't going to have a lot of depth). So if they want to play a full game, go for it, if they want 3 periods instead...fine. If they want 10 or 12 min quarters...whatever they agree on before the game. It's not like a Spring Game at many places is a full 15min/4 qtr game.

Soccer teams do this all the time in the spring...they'll play 3 30's instead of 2 45's. It's not like it counts for anything so who gives a shit? As long as you can evaluate your team and get better...and the fans will get a taste of CFB that no one gets in a watered down spring game.

You'd also get some cool non-conference matchups that would never happen during the year. Stanford or Miami or Texas at the Big House.

Let teams do one road game and one home game. They can even go against the same school if they want.

I'm daydreaming, but I think it'd be a fun way to get a couple of "games" in April. Going into the upcoming season.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

trueblueintexas

November 4th, 2016 at 1:13 PM ^

One of the big differences I love about college vs. NFL is that in college you have no idea what you are going to get until that first game. Everything between the bowl game and the first game is completely in-house. The second piece that makes college great (for me at least) is that every week matters. With only four playoff slots available it puts tremendous pressure on the top teams every week. 

The greed to see more college football (adding exhibition games in the spring or fall and exapnding playoffs) is the very thing that will kill the essence of what makes college football so awesome. 

The NFL is living proof. Owners thought they could keep getting rich by having 5 pre-season games. They thought they could get more eyeballs on TV's by moving to five time slots (Thursday night, 2 during the day on Sunday, Sunday night, and Monday night). They have since cut pre-season back to 4 games and the TV ratings this year are starting to dip and are not expanding for the new time slots. There has even been articles about why the NFL is becoming boring. As recent as two years ago there were articles about how the NFL is the best thing ever and nothing can stop it now. 

Joined: 11/10/2008

MGoPoints: 36433