GRIZ at NAU

[Grizbacker1]

NO, it is NOT the coahes call. Any coach who would do what you mention above is an idiot, and probably not a winning coach. There are many reasons a kid may not want to redshirt. Granted, it doesn't happen very often because a redshirt is generally discussed prior to the athlete coming to a school. But to say the coach can force it upon a student is a joke

Right...The players also decide when and how much playing time they get.

I don't even really care much if Autry or anyone else redshirted or not. It is a tough call either way. I have pointed out it is a good idea to consult the player multiple times, but it is ridiculous to say it isn't the coaches call as you initially did.

The first time a player doesn't appear in a game for a season, it doesn't burn a year of competitive eligibility. The player can climb the M and decree, "I refuse to redshirt!" The player can leave after 4 years, but he would still have a year of eligibility remaining in the eyes of the NCAA.

I am curious about this situation now though. Are you purely speaking hypothetically, or are you saying Tinkle wanted Autry to redshirt and chose to grant him his wish after Autry was adamantly against it?

I am not saying anything of the sort, you are the one trying to put words in my mouth. I can tell you from talking to umpteen Head Coaches I know very wel how the redshirt process works. I will say this one last time, please try and read it before another knee jerk reaction. A good head coach will have covered the redshirt situation during the recruiting process. I know full well the Griz FB team took a kid who could have been in the PAC 10 simply because he wanted to play right away, and the PAC 10 HC didn't think the kid was ready. So, believe it or not, I couldn't care less, but kids have a big say in it. A Coach who tries to force his will is going to lose the kid. That doesn't mean the coach isn't right, but there are life situations to consider too, not just the playing part of it.

 

[scottsgriz]

NO, it is NOT the coahes call. Any coach who would do what you mention above is an idiot, and probably not a winning coach. There are many reasons a kid may not want to redshirt. Granted, it doesn't happen very often because a redshirt is generally discussed prior to the athlete coming to a school. But to say the coach can force it upon a student is a joke

Right...The players also decide when and how much playing time they get.

I don't even really care much if Autry or anyone else redshirted or not. It is a tough call either way. I have pointed out it is a good idea to consult the player multiple times, but it is ridiculous to say it isn't the coaches call as you initially did.

The first time a player doesn't appear in a game for a season, it doesn't burn a year of competitive eligibility. The player can climb the M and decree, "I refuse to redshirt!" The player can leave after 4 years, but he would still have a year of eligibility remaining in the eyes of the NCAA.

I am curious about this situation now though. Are you purely speaking hypothetically, or are you saying Tinkle wanted Autry to redshirt and chose to grant him his wish after Autry was adamantly against it?

I am not saying anything of the sort, you are the one trying to put words in my mouth. I can tell you from talking to umpteen Head Coaches I know very wel how the redshirt process works. I will say this one last time, please try and read it before another knee jerk reaction. A good head coach will have covered the redshirt situation during the recruiting process. I know full well the Griz FB team took a kid who could have been in the PAC 10 simply because he wanted to play right away, and the PAC 10 HC didn't think the kid was ready. So, believe it or not, I couldn't care less, but kids have a big say in it. A Coach who tries to force his will is going to lose the kid. That doesn't mean the coach isn't right, but there are life situations to consider too, not just the playing part of it.

You are a riot. Perhaps you can try reading and avoiding knee jerk reactions.

Your scientific survey of umpteen coaches is meaningless especially when they are telling you things everyone knows and nobody disputes.

Your scenario involves a player interested in finding a coach who will DECIDE not to redshirt him. The Pac 10 coach makes it clear he will in fact DECIDE to redshirt him. So, the player finds a lower level team whose coach is willing to DECIDE to play him right away as a bargaining chip to sweeten the offer for the player.

I never said the player can't have input. I've been saying it is wise to take their opinion under consideration. Nice straw man though. Of course the topic often comes up and gets settled in the recruiting process. Could you point anything out that would be considered more obvious?

This began with a couple of other posters wishing Autry would play more since Tinkle DECIDED not to redshirt him and you saying it is all up to the player. Of course Autry could become disgruntled and/or leave if Tinkle DECIDED to redshirt him and he disagreed with Tinkle's DECISION (another obvious point that nobody has disputed).

 

[CDAGRIZ]

NO, it is NOT the coahes call. Any coach who would do what you mention above is an idiot, and probably not a winning coach. There are many reasons a kid may not want to redshirt. Granted, it doesn't happen very often because a redshirt is generally discussed prior to the athlete coming to a school. But to say the coach can force it upon a student is a joke

Right...The players also decide when and how much playing time they get.

I don't even really care much if Autry or anyone else redshirted or not. It is a tough call either way. I have pointed out it is a good idea to consult the player multiple times, but it is ridiculous to say it isn't the coaches call as you initially did.

The first time a player doesn't appear in a game for a season, it doesn't burn a year of competitive eligibility. The player can climb the M and decree, "I refuse to redshirt!" The player can leave after 4 years, but he would still have a year of eligibility remaining in the eyes of the NCAA.

I am curious about this situation now though. Are you purely speaking hypothetically, or are you saying Tinkle wanted Autry to redshirt and chose to grant him his wish after Autry was adamantly against it?

I am not saying anything of the sort, you are the one trying to put words in my mouth. I can tell you from talking to umpteen Head Coaches I know very wel how the redshirt process works. I will say this one last time, please try and read it before another knee jerk reaction. A good head coach will have covered the redshirt situation during the recruiting process. I know full well the Griz FB team took a kid who could have been in the PAC 10 simply because he wanted to play right away, and the PAC 10 HC didn't think the kid was ready. So, believe it or not, I couldn't care less, but kids have a big say in it. A Coach who tries to force his will is going to lose the kid. That doesn't mean the coach isn't right, but there are life situations to consider too, not just the playing part of it.

You are a riot. Perhaps you can try reading and avoiding knee jerk reactions.

Your scientific survey of umpteen coaches is meaningless especially when they are telling you things everyone knows and nobody disputes.

Your scenario involves a player interested in finding a coach who will DECIDE not to redshirt him. The Pac 10 coach makes it clear he will in fact DECIDE to redshirt him. So, the player finds a lower level team whose coach is willing to DECIDE to play him right away as a bargaining chip to sweeten the offer for the player.

I never said the player can't have input. I've been saying it is wise to take their opinion under consideration. Nice straw man though. Of course the topic often comes up and gets settled in the recruiting process. Could you point anything out that would be considered more obvious?

This began with a couple of other posters wishing Autry would play more since Tinkle DECIDED not to redshirt him and you saying it is all up to the player. Of course Autry could become disgruntled and/or leave if Tinkle DECIDED to redshirt him and he disagreed with Tinkle's DECISION (another obvious point that nobody has disputed).

This is pretty much the way I think it works as well, Scotts. I may be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that if a coach wants to redshirt a player, the player has veto power (and can remain a part of the team). I know that GU's decision to redshirt Dower last year went right down to the Texas scrimmage. It was between redshirting Dower or Olynyk. Olynyk had the better game, and the coaches decided to redshirt Dower. Now, I don't know if they ASKED him to redshirt, or TOLD him to, but we are (I think) talking about what happens in the latter situation. I have to think that a the coach has the final say, but who knows?

 

[mtgrizrule]

GB is right, a coach cannot force a player to redshirt. If a coach says you are redshirting, and player tells him he does not agree to it, then a coach cannot make him. Most situations, with most players, the coaches and player weigh the options together, and normally they decide mutually a redshirt is best. Some players like to leave the option open, in case they do want to transfer.

Just in case there is a coaching change, unhappiness, better opportunity, whatever it might be. It is good to keep the option open. Jack McGillis would have not likely transferred, if he did not have a year to redshirt for him transferring.

 

[GrizBBIsKing]

I guess I will just butt into this. A coach cannot force a player to redshirt. I know of two Lady Griz players who chose not to redshirt even though the coach wanted to. One of them is currently sitting at the end of the bench this year. She did not want to redshirt. That was her choice not the coaches.

The other Lady Griz player played back in late 90s-early 2000s. that player wanted to graduate in 4 years. didn't redshirt and left the program after 4 years.

most of the time, it is a decision between the coach and player. I bet most of the players that the coach wants to redshirt, chooses to redshirt. but if a player does not want to redshirt, they can't be forced into it. If they want to have a scholarship for only 4 years, that is their choice. they just may find them sitting on the bench all the time with very little playing time. Just like this current lady Griz player that is in her 3rd year here and plays rarely. Why I know it was her choice not to redshirt is because it was stated in the Missoulian that she didn't want to even though Selvig wanted her to redshirt.

Grizbacker1 is correct here.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Thanks for the info mtgrizrule, GrizBBisKing, (and GB1). :thumb:

I think, as you guys do, that it's usually a mutual decision. I just didn't know the player could have the ultimate say. The more you know...

 

[scottsgriz]

GB is right, a coach cannot force a player to redshirt. If a coach says you are redshirting, and player tells him he does not agree to it, then a coach cannot make him. Most situations, with most players, the coaches and player weigh the options together, and normally they decide mutually a redshirt is best. Some players like to leave the option open, in case they do want to transfer.

Just in case there is a coaching change, unhappiness, better opportunity, whatever it might be. It is good to keep the option open. Jack McGillis would have not likely transferred, if he did not have a year to redshirt for him transferring.

If the coach doesn't play the player for an entire year then the player hasn't used a year of eligibility unless the redshirt has already been used.

Definition from NCAA.org:

Redshirt Definition
The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

GB is right, a coach cannot force a player to redshirt. If a coach says you are redshirting, and player tells him he does not agree to it, then a coach cannot make him. Most situations, with most players, the coaches and player weigh the options together, and normally they decide mutually a redshirt is best. Some players like to leave the option open, in case they do want to transfer.

Just in case there is a coaching change, unhappiness, better opportunity, whatever it might be. It is good to keep the option open. Jack McGillis would have not likely transferred, if he did not have a year to redshirt for him transferring.

If the coach doesn't play the player for an entire year then the player hasn't used a year of eligibility unless the redshirt has already been used.

Definition from NCAA.org:

Redshirt Definition
The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition.

Scotts, can I fairly read your interpretation as suggesting that a coach can effectively force a dude to redshirt, in the event that the player does not want to, if the coach simply chooses not to play the player in the requisite number of contests? If so, and if true, can the coach say that the player redshirted during that year? If so, it would seem that, in practice, a coach can indeed effectuate a redshirt against a player's wishes.

 

[scottsgriz]

GB is right, a coach cannot force a player to redshirt. If a coach says you are redshirting, and player tells him he does not agree to it, then a coach cannot make him. Most situations, with most players, the coaches and player weigh the options together, and normally they decide mutually a redshirt is best. Some players like to leave the option open, in case they do want to transfer.

Just in case there is a coaching change, unhappiness, better opportunity, whatever it might be. It is good to keep the option open. Jack McGillis would have not likely transferred, if he did not have a year to redshirt for him transferring.

If the coach doesn't play the player for an entire year then the player hasn't used a year of eligibility unless the redshirt has already been used.

Definition from NCAA.org:

Redshirt Definition
The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition.

Scotts, can I fairly read your interpretation as suggesting that a coach can effectively force a dude to redshirt, in the event that the player does not want to, if the coach simply chooses not to play the player in the requisite number of contests? If so, and if true, can the coach say that the player redshirted during that year? If so, it would seem that, in practice, a coach can indeed effectuate a redshirt against a player's wishes.

Basically. A medical/hardship redshirt is the only kind where a player can appear in an official NCAA game (I think up to 30% of them) and still not lose a year of eligibility though. A normal redshirt becomes impossible if a player plays even one second in an official game, at least for that year.

In the Mcgillis situation, he had a redshirt available because he played in all of his seasons with OSU. If he wouldn't have played his first year, he would have returned the next year to OSU as a Freshman eligibility wise. Regardless of whether or not he played that year he would have used his Freshman year. He could have still transfered to a different team the next year where he would be a sophomore that couldn't participate in games. Once that year was done, he would be able to participate for his Junior and Senior years.

My point is not that coaches often do, nor should railroad players. But, if a player doesn't play in a season, the clock on their eligibility doesn't start. The player can say they didn't redshirt and leave the school, but they would leave with another year of eligibility remaining. The coach certainly has his say in the matter, even if he decides to leave the decision up to the player out of kindness or previous agreement.

 

[Grizbacker1]

GB is right, a coach cannot force a player to redshirt. If a coach says you are redshirting, and player tells him he does not agree to it, then a coach cannot make him. Most situations, with most players, the coaches and player weigh the options together, and normally they decide mutually a redshirt is best. Some players like to leave the option open, in case they do want to transfer.

Just in case there is a coaching change, unhappiness, better opportunity, whatever it might be. It is good to keep the option open. Jack McGillis would have not likely transferred, if he did not have a year to redshirt for him transferring.

If the coach doesn't play the player for an entire year then the player hasn't used a year of eligibility unless the redshirt has already been used.

Definition from NCAA.org:

Redshirt Definition
The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition.

Nice try. We were not discussing what you are now talking about. Hell, anyone knows what you just posted. YOU were arguing coaches decide who redshirts, period. And, you are WRONG, period. Debate would not have been a good area of participation for you.

 

[GrizBBIsKing]

GB is right, a coach cannot force a player to redshirt. If a coach says you are redshirting, and player tells him he does not agree to it, then a coach cannot make him. Most situations, with most players, the coaches and player weigh the options together, and normally they decide mutually a redshirt is best. Some players like to leave the option open, in case they do want to transfer.

Just in case there is a coaching change, unhappiness, better opportunity, whatever it might be. It is good to keep the option open. Jack McGillis would have not likely transferred, if he did not have a year to redshirt for him transferring.

If the coach doesn't play the player for an entire year then the player hasn't used a year of eligibility unless the redshirt has already been used.

Definition from NCAA.org:

Redshirt Definition
The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition.

We all know what the redshirt rules are.

But, a coach cannot force a player to redshirt, but a player can take a redshirt year if he doesn't play. two different things. But, if a player refuses to redshirt and coach refuses to play the player, sure the player can take a redshirt year, but the coach also doesn't have to renew the players scholarship for the next season. that letter of intent is only for the first season. most likely that player will be taking his redshirt season to some other school if the coach and player can't get along.