In Defense of Burned Redshirts
Everybody loves a 5th year senior. You'd take Jake Ryan over some unproven POS freshman and so would I.
But the tradeoff is never that simple. Last week Seth wrote a thoughtful lament of "burned redshirts" in recent Michigan history. Many others take a default "red-shirt until you can't" mentality. This is my all-due-respect counter-argument to this philosophy.
Top 10 Reasons to Play All Your Freshman*
or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Burn
*almost
1. It Helps Recruiting
Playing is great and waiting sucks. Immediate opportunity matters, especially to elite recruits. "We don't redshirt" is awesome marketing. "Come workout real hard, study for a year, and then we'll see" is not. Every coach will insist that the best will play, regardless of age, and Every Coach will challenge a recruit to not fear competition. Teams that differentiate have an advantage.
That's not to mention avoiding the unfortunate depth chart evaluation: "Oh that guy? Yeah we red-shirted him, so he'll be around for 4 more years to fight you for playing time"
2. Special Teams Matter
Coaches seem to care a lot more than fans. It's clearly important to Harbaugh (see: Baxter & Durkin) and Hoke used starters regularly on special teams (e.g., Blake Countess). If your best and most athletic freshman play, your team benefits.
Playing freshman on special teams can mean better results on special teams, fresher starters on O and D, and prevented injuries to your most important players. Replacing veterans with freshman on special teams not only reduces their injury potential but also reduces the need for rotating in backups because they stay fresh.
Next time someone argues a guy was "wasted" because he ONLY played on special teams, don't automatically discount his contributions.
3. Accelerated Player Development
I believe most development happens on the practice field, but one has to acknowledge that some marginal development happens in game as well. Playing a guy, even 'just' special teams, helps them grow and understand the difference between college and high school.
Jarrod Wilson probably isn't the player he was the last two seasons if he doesn't get his feet wet as a freshman.
4. Redshirts Are Failure
The best case scenario is an NFL caliber player who comes in right away and makes your team better. Red-shirting means the optimal scenario is out the window. Because we follow recruiting so closely we've probably already accepted it, and built it around the rankings, but the fact remains. A redshirt is a failure from the start relative to the optimal scenario.
The coaches failed to land the NFL caliber 4-year player we and they wanted and now you're left crossing your fingers, hoping that one day, 4 years later, it pays off.
5. Redshirts Are Wasteful
Even if it does payoff, you've invested more to get the payoff. The second the red-shirt determination is made you've committed to spending 5 years of scholarships to get the same 4 years of production you could have had otherwise, and that's in a best case scenario.
Scholarships are a limited resource. You have a budget of 85. Red-shirting is spending one year where you are guaranteed to get nothing in return.
6. The Redshirt Payoff Is Uncertain
To get the payoff on a red-shirt season, a 5th year senior must produce two scholarships worth: the one he gets his 5th year AND the one he got as a freshman.
In most cases the payoff doesn't come. Guys transfer, get kicked off the team, or just aren't good enough. In the case of Bellomy and Heitzman (and many more) we don't flinch when they aren't invited back. It's just the nature of the game. We toss aside the losing bet slip and write it off as a sunk cost. We've had four years to figure this out and already gave up. The blow is softened to the point of not being felt. But the cost remains on the books - Michigan gave up something and got nothing that year. Maybe Bellomy and Heitzman wouldn't have made any contribution as freshman, but whatever they would/could have done would be more than what they'll bring to Michigan in 2015.
Then there are the guys Michigan DOES want back. Coming back in year 5 is a two-way street. This off-season we've already lost two in Jack Miller and Justice Hayes. Michigan invested a red-shirt season scholarship in them and the payoff never came. This wasn't a big deal in the past, but with grad transfers becoming football free agents Michigan has become a consistent supplier of talent for other teams (e.g., Ryan Mundy, Mike Cox, Josh Furman, Justice Hayes).
Then of course there's the NFL draft. Michigan easily could have red-shirted Devin Funchess - too raw, too skinny, and unrefined as a blocker. He made some contributions his freshman year but nothing like his soph and junior years. It was argued at the time that his hypothetical 5th year contributions would have been so much more valuable to Michigan than what he did in 2012. But those contributions would never have been realized. Michigan made the right choice in playing Funchess as a freshman. As Urban Meyer oh so eloquently put it: "If you're a great player, you're gone, so play them."
7. Redshirt Opportunity Cost
This is really just points 1 and 5 again, but it's worth discussing a specific example that Seth raised: Raymon Taylor. Taylor easily could have red-shirted in 2011 and Michigan wouldn't have lost much.
Taylor was a good player. Any M fan/coach would like to have him back in 2015.
However, it has to be acknowledged that his departure created an opportunity for someone else. His starting spot was nearly filled by Iman Marshall (recruit seeing an opportunity) before it was ultimately filled by Wayne Lyons. Lyons may or may not be better than Taylor but it's reasonable to think that getting a crack at Marshall before 'downgrading' to a similarly experienced player of Lyons caliber (i.e., may not be a downgrade at all) is a net win for Michigan as compared to just getting Taylor back in year 5.
In the end, Michigan got a season's of special teams contribution from freshman year Taylor, accelerated his development, and got a shot at an elite recruit in 2015. All it 'lost' was swapping out one veteran player for another -- one that was more highly regarded as recruit 4 years earlier anyway.
This is a quintessential example of why it's never as simple as trading a 5th year guy for a freshman.
8. You Get More Players
It's math. Over a 10 year span, you get 850 scholarship-years. This is an inflexible maximum that applies to every NCAA team, and is unaffected by recruiting class sizes, NFL draft entries, transfers, walk-ons or injuries. The only possible change is moving the number down due to sanctions.If you have zero attrition and everyone red-shirts you will have 170 players in those 10 years, the smallest number possible (again, ignoring sanctions). The maximum is 850 players (if you swap out your entire roster every single season) but nobody is doing that (though Kentucky is wading into these waters in basketball). If you don't red-shirt anyone (all 4-year players) your new minimum is 212.
The red-shirting team in this attrition-free scenario gets 42 fewer players. The non-redshirting team increased the number of players passing through their program by up to 25%.
That's up to a 25% higher chance of finding the next Carter, Howard, Biakabatuka, Woodson, Edwards, Hart, or Robinson. It's what Alabama is trying to achieve by oversigning and medicaling people.
Red-shirting is a self-imposed sanction. You're voluntarily decreasing the number of players coming through your program. In other words you're UNDERsigning, and you're doing it by choice.
Now, obviously the above statements are obtuse hyperbole. We don't live in an attrition-free world and head coaches retain the ability to not invite 5th year players back. But hopefully you get the point -- every 5th year senior who is invited back takes the spot of someone else for a year. He makes recruiting classes incrementally smaller. Four 5th year seniors are the equivalent of one lost scholarship over a 4 year span.
9. Avoid The Redshirt That Burns You
Mike Cox played against Michigan. UMass lost, but there's a hypothetical situation where UM faces a guy and the outcome isn't so happy (e.g., Boren). What if Justice Hayes becomes the 3rd down back at Oregon State and they come to AA and pull off an upset in September? How would we be feeling about that red-shirt decision then? Michigan spent 4 years building them up, feeding them, training them, educating them, and now someone else gets to experience the pinnacle of their collegiate performance. And in some cases, you get to face it.
The guy may hurt you indirectly as well. Consider a hypothetical where Michigan was in the national title picture last year and got bumped out of the championship by Josh Furman's Oklahoma team. Maybe these situations are low probability, but stranger things have happened.
It's better to be consuming these grad school transfers than producing them. Not red-shirting people encourages this.
10. Flexibility & Insurance
Morgan and Countess got 5th years from injuries that occurred after their freshman seasons. If they had red-shirted as freshman they'd still be back in 2015, but we would have lost the production that they delivered in the 2011 season.
6th year players do exist, but are very uncommon. I have the impression the paperwork is onerous and leads to roster uncertainty due to the long response timelines. The cases of previously redshirted players losing a year because of injuries may be a lot more common than we think.
11. Motivation (Since 7 is sort of redundant, I give you a bonus)
The DO IT NOW attitude inherent with the no redshirt approach instills competition and urgency. No lollygagging in the weight room or practice field because you won't see the field for another year. Less favoritism for guys who've been around the program, more meritocracy.
Conclusions
Redshirts are wildly overrated. Redshirting is a suboptimal and wasteful resource allocation. Redshirting is a recruiting handicap. Redshirting is electing to undersign in an era of oversigning. Redshirting means self-imposing voluntary sanctions for good behavior. Red-shirts are scarlet letter Fs for failure.
Some of the list above are marginal points, it must be acknowledged. But taken together their effects are additive and significant. The benefit cost ratio on redshirts has shifted significantly in the last 10-20 years due to grad school transfers and changing expectations of student athletes.
Redshirting should be considered Plan B.
Exceptions
Kids who aren't going to play AT ALL: OL typically require physical development and QBs typically require mental development. Keeping your options open is fine, as long as you realize there's a very good chance that the redshirt a) isn't that good and you'll ask him to leave anyway b) is good but will leave by choice for another opportunity or c) will be subject to other attrition and never get to year 5. Keeping such a guy around comes with a lot of indirect costs.
-------------------
Did I convince you? Probably not, but there are valid reasons why the sport has evolved this way and some of the most successful coaches (e.g, Pete Carrol, Urban Meyer) were/are not redshirting it as a matter of policy.
According to Seth only 12 guys over the last 4 years are regretable at Michigan. Many of them fell under "pick one" category where Michigan needed help, it just didn't know who could help more (i.e., hindsight). Others where significant special teams contributors (e.g. Houma, Thomas). Some of the guys in more recent classes probably won't be around or asked back by then anyway. You're really down to one or two guys a year who you really can point to with regret. For all we know they got promises and wouldn't be here otherwise.
The 5th year guys who are back this year are...none. We have two former walk-ons and two guys that got injured last year.
I'm done worrying about it. Any RB, WR, LB, DB who is physically mature should be playing special teams instead of red-shirting. The only kids I want red-shirting in this 2015 recruiting class are the 3 OL, Washington (physically underdeveloped with high upside IMO), and Gentry (upside QB).
Attrition should be embraced. It is desireable. Michigan has recognized that at RB for decades. They'll recruit 2 guys every year, let them battle it out, pick a "primary" back, and then the buried guy eventually figures it out and leaves or moves to fullback. Harbaugh does this with his QBs too. Everybody applauds the competition, because the truth is somebody has to lose, and that's just life. Why not do it for every position?
Not redshirting is a way to be explicit about the reality of competition. There isn't a pot of playing time gold at the end of the 5-year rainbow for everybody. The pot is there, in front of your face, right now.
---------------
Finally, I realize this argument shits on the notion of letting people mature as student-athletes and humans. It's an enormous shift from the "freshman have to sit out a year" history of the NCAA. But the sport has evolved so far away from emphasizing student welfare. Fighting the prevailing trends and rules of the game means swimming upstream. Most players don't want to sit out a year, most programs lose out by doing it... so what's the point?
Good Diary!
I appreciate your posting this. I'm fully on board with the special teams redshirt burn. This is both because special teams are important, and because most of the redshirts that are burned for special teams grow into good players not great players.
I have grown weary of the overreaction to the number of burned redshirts on this board. Yes, we have lost a bunch of 5th years from good players, but in almost every case there will be minimal dropoff from the younger replacement player.
The only burned redshirts I would really like to have back in retrospect are Dymonte Thomas, Taco Charlton and Ben Gedeon. Each of them could be a star as a 5th year senior. However, I completely understand why they played. Taco Charlton played a good deal, and it would be hard to project at the beginning of the year whether he would be adequate or firgure things out and be quite good. He filled a dynamic pass rusher role that we needed more of. Dymonte Thomas didn't play that much beyond special teams. However, this is another example where it would not have been surprising if he had figured things out mid-year and started the last half of the season. As for Ben Gedeon, he played most of the OSU game that year and had 6 tackles and a tackle for loss. Hard to argue that he wasn't needed. He is another player that could have taken off and become a starter the last half of the season.
There are a bunch of other nice players, but which of the following would be projected as all Big Ten in their 5th yr senior year: Jenkins-Stone, Ojemudia, Delano Hill, Damrio Jones, Houma. Maybe Brennan Beyer, but he played a lot as a freshman. It would be nice to have them back, but they will have adequate replacements.
March 14th, 2015 at 11:46 PM ^
Bolden, Ross, RJS, and Morgan are all gone after this year. All but Morgan could have had a redshirt. I know Bolden and Ross played a lot as freshmen, but man, we're counting on a lot of guys to step up at LB next year because we didn't use many redshirts. Just put another year on RJS and things look much better.
All B1G is a ridiculous bar to set for who should be redshirted. OSU won a national championship with 8 players first and second-team combined on the All B1G vote for media and coaches.
March 15th, 2015 at 10:04 AM ^
But I have the impression he didn't want to do it. It's possible Michigan wasn't in a position to red-shirt him due to his own preferences. Red-shirts don't HAVE to be consensual, but most times they should be.
But IIRC he made comments as a recruit about playing three (not four) years and then being out for the NFL. Obviously he has had to recalibrate those expectations.
March 15th, 2015 at 10:11 AM ^
But they aren't the cause of it. The problem is more about recruiting and scholarship allocations.
Hoke and staff loaded up on LBs, especially in 2012 and have been rewarded with a veteran and experienced groups in 2014 and now again in 2015. But that depth kept younger players at bay a bit and the '14 class had a ton of misses. Now Michigan will need to find more help in the '16 class.
Michigan needs to get more athletic at LB as Hoke and staff emphasized size and struggled to land impact edge players.
March 14th, 2015 at 10:46 PM ^
It would take way too long to respond to everything, but a lot of the benefits you cite, while true, also seem like very small benefits or ones that rarely occur. And I think those benefits are easily outweighed by another year of good play from a few 5th-year seniors. Like I mentioned in the other thread, MSU and Wisconsin have built very good programs with mostly meh recruits precisely because of that policy. That's why it depends on the program. For teams with the talent like Alabama has, I agree that being really conservative with redshirts isn't the best way in general. I read the article you cited, but "don't worry about a redshirt for a guy like Manziel" shouldn't be applied to the average players, even the average player on really good teams.
I will directly address number 2 though because I think that one is flat-out wrong. Special teams do matter, and that's exactly why I'd like some better players on there instead of true freshmen. "Special teams matter, so that's why you should play your most inexperienced and physically weakest players there" isn't a good argument. It certainly isn't the only reason special teams sucked, but Hoke's results on special teams certainly don't help an argument for playing freshmen. I also remember hearing about how good Urban's teams were on special teams at Florida (and/or Utah?) and how he played his starters there.
You're taking an approach that's way too extreme. No coach in America thinks redshirting is always bad or always good. If a guy really is physically and mentally ready and/or you need the depth, then sure, burn his redshirt. But if he's going to get in on 5 or so plays a game on special teams, which is really adding nothing compared to what he gets in practice, and he's a typical freshman that's going to make a lot of mistakes and is going to get significantly better each year, then redshirt him. Seth and Brian haven't been saying all burned redshirts are terrible. If you want to make a counterpoint to that article, what you really should do is argue that the people specifically mentioned as having a wasted year don't really matter. And the case that whatever Dymonte got in his freshman year is better than having more bodies next year in a secondary where our safety depth is looking scary is a much harder one to make.
March 15th, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^
I think if you're an MSU or Wisconsin it makes some sense in order to gain an edge by focusing on a system. You have to do something different, right?
We're Michigan. We should be recruiting at a top 10 level and that talent shouldn't be sitting on benches.
Also note: I don't think red-shirting is ALWAYS bad. I just think don't think it's worth sweating as a fan. There are benefits to the individual players that do it - obviously - but there consequences as well that need to be weighed.
I would have no problem with Stribling or Thomas getting red-shirted at all. I'm not sure we'd really be better off for it, but I'm not AGAINST it by any stretch, because those guys were always viewed as high upside players. I think the team would be better of in 2016 for it.
BUT they would have been worse off in the freshman years those guys did play (by a little bit) and the cumulative effect of NOT redshirting players means more guys will step up as replacements. Their 'premature' departure will create opportunities for others. And multiple decisions like this mean more scholarships in the end. Neither guy is a world-beater, so I'm not bummed about it.
The problem is if you have a chance to make a guy who is already in your program a better player by letting him build up his body and adjust to the game and you're actively pissing on it then you're not really engaging in great judgment, if you made a bad bet and letting the guy move on before his fifth year, then are you really losing anything?
Michigan has had a number of developmental guys in its recruiting classes and it seems the last staff ignored the need to develop in favor of........something. I agree the criticism is overblown, but when the overall program took on a stink of never having a plan this was one more thing that made people wonder if Brady was passing the coomon sense test. also let's face it, Ohio St. and Alabama are TERRIBLE comparisons for where M has been at recruiting and program-wise the past few years. when M is actively redshirting guys who seem like they should be on the field rather than putting guys on the field who look completely clueless, I'll be more disposed to your argument. As it is, your argument feels anecdotal and based off of an unrealistic comparison.
If the guy has enough upside and will grow that much from freshman to 5th year then yeah, you redshirt him. But all the considerations (well at least some of them) have to be taken into account (uncertainty, development, opportunity cost, motivation, competition, recruiting, etc.) Each can be dismissed individually but in aggregate these things matter. So, that gap better be pretty big. In the case of a guy like Channing Stribling (high upside, physically underdeveloped) and OLmen and QBs then yeah - you do it. In a case like Raymon Taylor...eh, I don't think you lose that much, because Taylor didn't get THAT much better than he was and wasn't an irreplaceable player anyway.
I don't think OSU or Alabama are terrible comparisons for Michigan to strive to be at that level. If Michigan reaches a point where they are stable and talented and every freshman that comes in has zero chance of making a meaningful contribution then I'll be all for red-shirting. My argument is based on NOW. We have freshman who have talent. We're rolling out with walk-ons on the 2 deep. We're trying to create a SEIZE-THE-DAY culture. etc.
March 14th, 2015 at 11:05 PM ^
Rebuttals:
1: "Come work out real hard, study for a year, and then we'll see" is nobody's marketing pitch. "You'll get a fair chance and if you prove you belong, then you'll play" is a more common one. "I guarantee you'll play" certainly works on some kids, but then you're stuck actually having to follow through. I can think of at least one coach who uses this pitch: Mike London. It works ... um, great. London's doing awesome.
2: The choice isn't between starters and freshmen. There are veteran backups. It doesn't take a freshman to take advantage of a blown assignment. And veterans are less likely to blow their own.
3: Freshmen commonly say that there's a huge difference between high school and college ... and they say so without ever having played in a game. All it takes to open their eyes to the difference is practice. And nobody's going to get a good feel for the game just by running 50 yards to cover a touchback. I mean, that's an incredible leap of faith on Jarrod Wilson with zilch in the way of evidence.
4: This is sort of like saying every play that doesn't score a touchdown is a failure. If I've got a senior quarterback, and the freshman who comes in doesn't unseat him, and redshirts instead, only a whackjob would call that a failure. Let's say, for the sake of argument, you get that perfect 22-player class full of NFL-caliber players and they all start as freshmen. Next year, what happens? Do they move aside for the next class of perfect players? Or are they good enough to keep playing? Some of these are salient points; #4 is really stupid. Everyone in this room, no points, mercy on your soul, etc.
5: This point assumes a player would be equally productive whether a true freshman or a redshirt freshman. Which in turn assumes that practice and lifting is literally 100% worthless.
6: Sometimes you do get players who are NFL-bound and basically going to leave after three years. Not too many people argue for redshirting those guys. However, let's assume something very logical. Let's say a player gets better every year. Does that sound right? If not, you need a new coach. So if a player gets better every year, his worst year is his freshman year and his best year is his fifth year. Why would you trade a player's best year for his worst?
7: Since this is just points 1 and 5 repeated, I'll ignore the inflationary pumping.
8: It's certainly true that every fifth-year senior takes the place of a potential freshman. But it really shouldn't need explaining that if it were hurting the team to do so, the coaches wouldn't invite the fifth-year player back.
9: You do realize that a non-redshirted player actually finds it easier to transfer, because he can do so any time he likes and not lose a year of eligibility. Redshirted players, on the other hand, are forced to wait til they get their degree.
10: Getting a 6th year is not that onerous; the reason it's rare is because it takes a specific set of circumstances. It's no harder than getting a 5th year for a player who never redshirted but blows out his knee in the first game of his senior year.
11: If you have a problem with players lollygagging, and putting forth no effort because they know they're redshirting, you have MAJOR issues that go beyond redshirting. You have leadership problems, you have coaching problems, and you're recruiting the wrong players. Good coaches - most coaches, actually - know how to prevent that. If a guy is going to screw around during his redshirt year, he's probably not going to just flip a switch and be a hard worker when he's not redshirting, either.
Bottom line: You should play a freshman if it will make your team better by doing so. If the freshman brings nothing that you can't get from a veteran, redshirt him. No, it's not always as simplistic as trading the player's worst year for his best - but often, it is.
March 15th, 2015 at 10:45 AM ^
My retort:
1. It's not a marketing PITCH but it is a reality at place like Wisconsin. They continue to struggle with recruiting compared to their level of on-field success. Elite recruits know that Wisconsin does this systematically and some stay away because of it.
2. There's often not enough good veteran backups to field full special teams units. Sometimes freshman ARE the best guys. They can be faster and more athletic than backups. If vets are better special teams players they should play.
3. Like I said, most of the development happens in practice. But playing in games help. It may be marginal, but it's a consideration. I bet Wilson would say he learned a lot.
4. Really stupid, is harsh. It's hyperbole with an element of truth to it. What Kentucky does in basketball is not stupid. Yeah, football freshman aren't going pro, but the top recruits (which coaches want) are generally playing as freshman. It's not a realistic scenario, it's an extreme that doesn't apply to everybody but it's a legitimate point. Every team has holes to fill and every coach would love to have freshman fill those holes. When they don't do it, they fail, just a baseball player fails when he swings and misses or football player fails when he makes a misplay. It's common and expected but it's still not the optimal outcome.
5. Your interpretation is incorrect. I don't dispute that people get better over time. Redshirting is optimal for the individual. Not redshirting is optimal for the TEAM.
6. You'd do it for all the reasons I mentioned above. You don't know who the NFL players are ahead of time, you don't know if the guys you red-shirt will still be around, you take fewer players, and all the other stuff. It's suboptimal.
8. Because coaches are generally conserevative (risk averse) and recruits are uncertainties. They'll take the security blanket over the lottery ticket.
9. The specific set of circumstances isn't that rare. We have two guys on the team right now who had season-ending injuries.
11. Some kids are going to do this. Not redshirting is a coaching aid.
"You should play a freshman if it will make your team better by doing so."
-Agreed. This is a very low bar though. Competition makes the team better and coaches like to see what they have in games.
" If the freshman brings nothing that you can't get from a veteran, redshirt him."
- I have no problem with this really, but most freshman that bring nothing will not end up bringing a lot of value in year 5, and that value will come with a cost.
"it's not always as simplistic as trading the player's worst year for his best - but often, it is."
It literally NEVER is that simple. If you take nothing else away from my comments you should at least recognize that it took 2 years worth of scholarship to have that guy play his 5th year, as opposed to a freshman contributor.
March 15th, 2015 at 11:54 AM ^
#1 completely undermines your argument though. Like, all the way. On-field success is the point, not recruiting success. Besides, Wisconsin struggles to get elite recruits for reasons far unrelated to redshirting. Elite recruits tend to come from the South and want to play in electric Oregon-style offenses, not the Beef-Town Pro-Stylers from dairyland. (The coaching turnover of late hasn't helped, either.)
On the flip side, UVA does a pretty good job lighting up the recruiting boards on February, because Mike London does exactly what you propose, and flops miserably in the fall. You're basically arguing that it's better to be Virginia than Wisconsin. Bonkers.
March 15th, 2015 at 12:13 PM ^
Talent contributes to and correlates with on-field success. If you can't get it, you have to manufacture an advantage elsewhere -- like building a system that depends on stability, experience, size, and execution.
I don't know how you can argue "their offense is too vanilla to recruit well" as a Michigan fan, not to mention with the success that Alabama, USC, Georgia and other pro-style teams have had.
As a UVA fan I can see where your arden debate is coming from. But I think it's obvious there's are whole lot more to football than redshirt decisions on the margins. We're talking about a fringe decision, more akin to baseball batting order than talent level of player development.
Redshirting less than normal is something that OSU, Oregon and USC have used to their advantage. UVA isn't struggling because they don't redshirt kids. It takes 5 years for even the first effects of such a policy to begin to be felt.
Wahoo fisked your article so thoroughly I initially didn't feel the need to rebut. I think you have a few small, situationally salient considerations that don't in any way constitute a complete argument. They're more like "that would suck if it happens" things.
To rebut your rebut:
- Wisconsin doesn't get elite recruits because they're Wisconsin. They have Michigan-like academic standards they take seriously, and are three states away from any recruiting ground of note. Until Barry Alvarez these factors made them a historical doormat. You should read less into their inability to crack a ceiling only considerably more advantaged schools have ever, and marvel instead at how they've built a consistently competitive program with half the natural resources of their competition, and wonder how we might adapt bits of that strategy to Michigan.
- Re special teams the redshirt decision is a total value judgment, not one based on a singular factor, e.g. "is the best at 2nd gunner on punt coverage." With the spread punt and the 25-yard-line touchback there are very few relevant snaps left on special teams. Let's say for the sake of argument that Dymonte is not going to see any defensive snaps but he's a little bit above Marvin Robinson on kickoff returns. The value of Dymonte to the 2012 team on the 21 kickoff return plays they faced is real, but miniscule against the possible contribution of an entire 2016 season of Dymonte Thomas.
- Arguing for Wilson is a red herring; the original argument concerning who should redshirt said that Wilson should not have, because he played actual defensive snaps in preparation to start at a crucial position in 2013. If you want to argue against redshirts on principle you have to show that Jeremy Clark should have played too. I'll grant you that on-field experience (not special teams) is good for player development, but again this is a question of degrees. Two snaps at the end of an Illinois blowout in the pouring rain is of such a tiny value it's insignificant against the potential value of an optional 5th year. Marginal value is marginal. If it's 99% one way and 1% the other way, we acknowledge the 1% and move on because nothing is certain and we need to make the best decision.
- The Brad Whitmore treatment is 100% applicable on your 4th point, because you are assuming an unknown value for a known. By the same logic you shouldn't throw out a losing lotto ticket, because that is admitting that your lotto ticket didn't win (the optimal scenario). A player is either good enough to make a significant contribution or he isn't, and the coaches evaluate that before making the redshirt decision. Also I call your premise of "best possible case" wrong because Steve Hutchinson. Your fourth point has no possible redeemable value and should be disavowed.
-
His interpretation is correct; yours is incorrect. He pointed out that you are conflating true freshman value with 5th year value. In either case--redshirt or no redshirt--every player has four seasons he can contribute over five years. The redshirt is an option, not a commitment.
And it's not wasting anything to not have all 85 scholarship players not redshirting, because the sum total of contribution opportunities is less than the total number of scholarships. The team has 85 scholarship spots to fill ~46 positions of which between 24 and 38 are significant, so over 40% of your scholarships each year are going to guys who will not be making a significant on-field contribution. Redshirting means you are not squandering potential value of the non-contributing portion of the team (again, if he's contributing he isn't redshirting).
Also you have to account for the fact that redshirting is a revocable option while not redshirting isn't. If over the course of the season the player is needed, you can revoke the redshirt. Brandon Harrison in 2005 is an example: Michigan was redshirting him until Angry Michigan Safety Hating God decimated the defensive backfield. Michigan managed to maintain his potential value to the 2009 team until the point when he was needed on the 2005 team. -
This is the one cent now or 70% likelihood of a $20 later argument again. You are saying take the one cent now because you're not certain to get the $20. We're saying it's worth giving up a cent for a 70% chance at a $20. Essentially you are conflating "possible you won't get the $20" into "you won't get the $20". That is a fatal flaw in your #6, which should get the Whitford treatment.
In terms of Michigan players: the value of Jack Miller to the 2011 team was less than 1 cent, since he was 235 pounds and had played mostly defensive end to that point. Khoury and Mealer weren't any good, and that was almost fatal when Molk got hurt for the Sugar Bowl, but both were plenty ahead of Jack Miller in 2011. You are arguing the coaches should have burned Miller's redshirt so they could have a 4th string center who doesn't yet know how to do center things because Miller was going to give up football in March 2015. Likewise Justice Hayes (who coincidentally i met last night) was so skinny in 2011 it would have been murder to put him out there. At that point their 5th years were 100% potential, and their freshman years were of zero value to the 2011 team. That is entirely a hindsight judgment and therefore of no value to the argument. -
(no seven)
-
This is the first thing of any value you've mentioned in your rebuttal, but it is tertiary to the argument. We are assuming the coach will make a correct judgment on a 5th year senior. What you didn't say, and what might give a smidge of help to your argument, is that coaches are under some pressure to bring back a guy with eligibility because that guy is close with the other players, and you don't want the other players to think you'll summarily cut them for a swing at another recruit. Again, this is a small consideration, and if coaches were burning redshirts just to avoid the potential awkwardness of dismissing guys that would be very stupid.
And moot, because not extending 5th years is very standard. Relevant numbers: from the 1993 to 2011 classes, discounting all other forms of attrition (since M doesn't have a say in that), more than 1 in 10 of Michigan's scholarship players were eligible for but were not extended a 5th year of eligibility. Again, not counting other attrition, one in six (27/168) of guys they redshirted as freshmen got the firm handshake. You are suggesting that Michigan should have burned the other 84% of 5th year guys they end up wanting.
Let's be more conservative and suggest that our firm handshake rate was due to Carr's crappy 2-star recruiting. Say Harbaugh recruits like Moeller did, and it's only a 4-to-1 ratio. In practice you are saying the 1997 team shouldn't have had Rob Swett, Glen Steele, Zach Adami, or Brian Griese on it, because you don't trust Carr to send Mike Elston on his way to make room for Anthony Thomas
/blows smoke from barrell. - WHY DIDN'T YOU RESPOND TO #9? He totally blew your argument apart there. At least say "Yes, I rescind #9 because you are correct."
-
Your point in #10 boils down to we shouldn't redshirt guys because they might grad transfer and use it against us. That's like saying Michigan ought to get rid of its Chemistry program because we once produced the unabomber. Again it's weighing potential value vs potential loss.
Here's some guys (incomplete list) we didn't redshirt whom we got medical hardship waivers for: Ryan Mundy, Marques Slocum, Tim Jamison, Kevin Grady, Troy Woolfolk, Junior Hemingway, Cato June, Blake Countess, Jabrill Peppers, Desmond Morgan, Amara Darboh, Devin Gardner.
Mundy is an example of a guy I would have recommended redshirting as a freshman rather than burning it on special teams (Mundy didn't crack the depth chart even when Marlin was hurt and Willis Barringer and Jacob Stewart were getting starts). Michigan got him a medshirt for 2005; in 2007 he was grad year transfer to West Virginia, and his success there convinced us that Tony Gibson knew what he was doing.
So the lesson is don't redshirt guys because they may grad transfer to West Viriginia and convince you Tony Gibson can coach. Okay, granted.
-
This is the only part of Wahoo's rebuttal I didn't like because he addressed the worst part of this argument (coachspeak) when there's a stronger part of this argument (immediacy). Let's use the classic example of a 5-ish star guy Michigan redshirted who then had significant motivational issues: JT Turner. Turner as a true freshman in 2009 didn't crack the crappiest DB depth chart we'd known to that point (2010 hadn't happened yet #NeverForget), so Rodriguez redshirted him, then rode his ass. Turner wound up becoming nothing because he didn't have ability to summon the ludicrous effort it takes to compete at that level. In 2010, with an even worse depth chart, Turner's motivation dropped even further. Was this because he had four instead of three years left to prove himself, or because Turner, like me and most other humans, wasn't born with the willingness to half-kill himself for a sport?
Redshirt or no, to be a contributor at Michigan takes an uncanny level of self-motivation. Meanwhile, a redshirt does not affect how a player practices or competes--if half-way through a season a true freshman beats out a starter, they can still remove the redshirt. A burned redshirt can be a source of motivation, but remember you're already dealing with a sample of super-motivated kids, and super-motivational coaches, and the law of diminishing returns applies, so a running clock is only a marginal whip.
We can also say the opposite is true: a guy whose eligibility will run out at the same time as the starter at his position is likely to transfer or give up football, while a redshirt junior behind a senior knows fighting will likely secure him a year's worth of starting.
VaWolv's points still stand.
Kaczynski got his PhD in math, not chem.
/pedantry
March 16th, 2015 at 10:35 AM ^
Would you say you Loved my post or LLLLLLLLLOVED it?
Ultimately, you're saying the same thing others said above: That I'm listing a bunch of small (or irrelevant) considerations against the large benefit of optimizing value for an individual player. Which is a legitimate argument, but a somewhat subjective one depending on the valuation of all these considerations.
1. Wisconsin's not a model for Michigan. I think we have more to learn from another historical doormat - Oregon. There's different ways to be successful, but in this case there's and old and a new way, and I'll side with progress. In my view, redshirting less is a systematic effeciency and the trend in college football is toward it.
2. Nobody is disputing that an INDIVIDUAL (e.g., Dymonte Thomas) 5th year is more valuable than an INDIVIDUAL freshman year. The point is it's about a TEAM and a program. That there are consequences to seeking that individual maximum (like fewer scholarships and all the other stuff I mentioned).
You think the value of a freshman on special teams is small - I get that. Clearly a lot of head football coaches make a different "value judgment". That doesn't mean they are right, but it
3. Wilson was brought up as an example of a freshman learning from playing time. It was pretty clear he wasn't ready, there were some other options around who probably could have done as well (or close) but the coaches wanted him developed. Yeah, it's marginal value, and I said so. But it's a marginal value that we can't quantify. Getting your ass handed too you by some no-star Illinois chump can function as an eye-opener.
4. The Stribling/Lewis example is but one of many that shows you the coaches make decisions about who can play after these decisions.
The point is an abstraction, but it is spot on. If you're on a budget you can pay $5 for something or $4 for something, you're better of paying $4. This is a fact. It ignores a lot of context and it's not actually the same thing you're getting and so on, but the basic concept is valid. In this case you get the thing and then you find out if you have to pay another $1 to make it good. Obviously, you hope you don't.
5. Yeah, the red-shirt is 5th year is a revocable option, which blows up a big chunk of the 4 vs. 5 math out the window. But not nearly all of it, the 5th season still comes at a cost and the payoff is uncertain and coaches are likely to make suboptimal decisions. My point is that the payoff (QB and OL excepted) is rare once you account for the many forms of attrition. Coaches make this decision because tradition, convention, and not looking at the big picture. Most of them anyway - there are progressive thinkers and they happen to be some of the best coaches on the planet.
6. This really hits on the difference in opinons - the math. I think of it more like 20% likelihood of $15 later than a 70% likelihood of $20 later. And I think the freshman team special teamer is more like a $3 value than $1.
Note: I'm not disputing OL redshirts. Freshman OL are rarely ready to play or contribute on special teams. I'd like them to be redshirted. This was a qualifier in my original post. So, no, I didn't want Miller to play as a freshman.
As for Hayes - Freddy Canteen was skinny too and he scored a TD against OSU. As I said before, if he makes ONE play in 2011 that makes the team better Michigan gets more than they got.
8. I'm assuming a coach often can't make a correct judgement about a 5th year. They might get it wrong their freshman year, they might get it wrong after their 4th. It's an opportunity to make a suboptimal decision in either case. I assume they are usually right but add it to the pile of 'small' things that add up.
By no means am I saying Michigan should have burned all those redshirts. To give one example, I'm saying that Jake Ryan could have played in 2010 and maybe he helps saves a head coaches job. And maybe Jake Ryan not returning in 2014 opens a spot for a 3-star recruit that ends up being a Heisman trophy winner. Unlikely, yes, but (hopefully) you get the point that it's not JUST about trading 2014 Jake Ryan for 2010 Jake Ryan (which seems to be the extent of rationalization of redshirt grumbling).
9. Is a valid point, but guy still has to sit out a year which is onerous - unlike a 5th year player. A 2nd year player (RS FR) is more likely to stick around (not transfer) if they played than if they red-shirted. For a 3rd year player (RS SO), Wahoo's point is probably valid, but like many of mine, a minor concern issue. For a 4th year player (RS JR) they have a choice: a) transfer, sit out a year, and play their 5th year or b) play a year, graduate from michigan, transfer and play. B is clearly superior, especially if you're talking about a Michigan degree.
10. It's not one unabomber, it's dozens of unabomers. It's not one redshirt that doesn't pan out, it's most of them (OL excluded) who don't provide any return on investment and that number is going up with the grad school transfer option. Mundy was one of the first guys I can remember taking advantage of it but now it's becoming an every year thing. College football has a free agency period.
11. "A redshirt does not affect how a player competes." I don't know how to dispute this other than to say you are wrong. Rewards affect behavior. People like immediate rewards more than distant ones and respond accordingly. You're arguing against basic universal human psychology.
March 19th, 2015 at 11:10 PM ^
Illinois is a fairly good recruiting ground, and it, with Chicago, is just South of Wisconsin.
You Said:
"Most freshman that bring nothing will not end up bringing a lot of value in year 5, and that value will come with a cost."
Here are 131 anecdotes of when you were wrong:
Zach Adami, Kurt Anderson, David Baas, Jeff Backus, Greg Banks, Ricky Barnum, Willis Barringer, Rondell Biggs, Mark Bihl, Grant Bowman, Eric Brackins, Tom Brady, David Brandt, Steve Breaston, Joey Burzynski, Tyrece Butler, Mark Campbell, Clint Copenhaver, Shawn Crable, Julius Curry, Markus Curry, Kenny Demens, Joe Denay, Carl Diggs, Perry Dorrestein, Scott Dreisbach, Kevin Dudley, Tyler Ecker, Brandent Englemon, Obi Ezeh, Juaquin Feazell, Jay Feely, John Ferrara, Adam Finley, J.T. Floyd, Steve Frazier, Jake Frysinger, Jeremy Gallon, Brendan Gibbons, Jason Gingell, Graham Glasgow, Cameron Gordon, Thomas Gordon, Brian Griese, James Hall, David Harris, Will Heininger, Leo Henige, Norman Heuer, Victor Hobson, Steve Hutchinson, Mark Huyge, Jon Jansen, DiAllo Johnson, Will Johnson, Bennie Joppru, Anthony Jordan, Cato June, Joe Kerridge, Mike Kolodziej, Jordan Kovacs, Adam Kraus, Mike Kwiatkowski, Shawn Lazarus, Kevin Leach, Matt Lentz, Jeremy LeSueur, Taylor Lewan, Jake Long, K.C. Lopata, Roy Manning, Tim Massaquoi, Michael Massey, Patrick Massey, Ben Mast, Tim McAvoy, Scott McClintock, John McColgan, Elliott Mealer, Zoltan Mesko, Andy Mignery, David Molk, David Moosman, Courtney Morgan, Mark Moundros, Jonas Mouton, John Navarre, Obi Oluigbo, Patrick Omameh, Mark Ortmann, Tony Pape, Dave Pearson, Dave Petruziello, Marcus Ray, Rob Renes, Joe Reynolds, Rueben Riley, Eric Rosel, Roy Roundtree, Dan Rumishek, Jake Ryan, Stephen Schilling, Michael Schofield, Bill Seymour, Jon Shaw, Aaron Shea, Demeterius Solomon, Glen Steele, Adam Stenavich, Charles Stewart, Jacob Stewart, Rob Swett, Sam Sword, Carl Tabb, Brian Thompson, John Thompson, Shawn Thompson, Fitzgerald Toussaint, Morgan Trent, Jerame Tuman, Jeremy Van Alstyne, Ryan Van Bergen, Jay Vinson, Quinton Washington, Steve Watson, Andre Weathers, Brandon Williams, Josh Williams, Eric Wilson, Pierre Woods, Chris Ziemann.
I'm sure after reading that your palm and your forehead are pretty sore, but please add an extra hard one for each Tom Brady Superbowl victory anway.
Those guys all started (or are expected to start) at least two games as 5th year seniors for Michigan, and were voluntarily redshirted as freshmen (or in Kovac's case, didn't even make the team).
March 16th, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^
And then cut out the guys before grad school transfers were an issue.
Your list of good-thing-lanknows-isn't-the-coach-and-they-redshirted just got a lot shorter.
Now also account for the opportunity cost of players who never suited up for Michigan because those guys took up extra scholarships their freshman seasons where they didn't help Michigan win.
But the real counter to your point is that we don't know how, say, David Harris might have helped his freshman year because he wasn't given a chance to play.
And seriously...Joe Reynolds?
We will never know what we don't know in those situations.
We don't know what David Harris would look like as a freshman.
We also don't know what Raymon Taylor would look like as a fifth year senior.
Sixth years are supposed to require evidence that two years were missed by injury. Michigan has never had a single waiver request approved. I believe that the NCAA has approve a couple of dubious requests, but the point stands. Getting a sixth year is far more difficult than a fifth.
March 14th, 2015 at 11:57 PM ^
Redshirts are a case-specific thing - sometimes good, sometimes bad, depends on the player and the scenario in which they're used.
Yeah, this is what I was thinking, too. When you have, like, a twelve-step process to explain why something is good or bad, it means there's no real formula for this kind of thing. I doubt the coaches are sitting in the office doing a twelve-point check on whether they should redshirt Zach Gentry or not.
I think the bottom line is that some redshirts are good, and some redshirts are bad. Part of a coach's evaluation process is figuring out which ones would be a good idea. In that aspect, I don't think Hoke did a very good job. As others have said, we have had very little attrition at the linebacker position from guys leaving early, and yet we're pumping out fourth-year seniors like crazy. Even in Morgan's case, there would have been no doubt about him coming back in 2015 if he had redshirted back in 2011; as it stands now, he's lucky he got hurt so early, because if it had happened in the fifth game, he would have been taking part in Michigan's pro day on Thursday. (I understand that Morgan played a significant role on that 2011 team, but he's an example of why it's nice to redshirt guys.)
If Hoke had done a better job of redshirting guys, we might be looking at a three-linebacker lineup this year of Morgan (5th), Bolden (Sr.), and Ross (RS Jr.). Next year we might have Ross (5th), Jenkins-Stone (5th), and Gedeon (RS Jr.). That bridges the gap between our experienced 2015 group and the next wave of linebackers from the 2014 class (Winovich, Furbush, Wangler).
March 15th, 2015 at 10:39 AM ^
March 15th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
He's a great example of why redshirting guys is a bad idea actually.
By NOT redshirting him Michigan got a seasons worth of production from him that they probably wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
In either case he'd be back in 2015. With a redshirt he'd be less experienced and less productive.
The benfit of the red-shirt hinges on two assumption 1) he'd come back for a 6th year in 2016. Kind of doubtful. He's probably going to move on from college at some point a la Miller and 2) Hoke made a mistake in playing him in 2011 and he could have been replaced by someone else (also very doubtful). Morgan was a key contributor.
March 15th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^
I'm not sure any of those guys are going to start next year. I'd project Gedeon, McCray and Harbaugh/Durkin recruits as next year's starters...but we'll see.
It'd be nice to have RJS back next year, but Ross and Bolden played too big of a role to regret.
And if we had the LB depth in previous years to justify benching those guys we wouldn't have been able to take some of the recruits we got in the '13 class for example. So that might mean no Stribling or Hurst for example - guys who could be starters in the next year or two.
March 15th, 2015 at 12:12 PM ^
It's possible that those guys don't start, but at least you would have options in case of injury, underperformance, etc. In the current case, you have to hope everyone stays healthy or you're playing guys who have never seen the field before.
March 15th, 2015 at 12:34 PM ^
I just see it as an issue of talent identification, scholarship allocation, and recruiting success. Red-shirts could have helped fixed the problem, but they aren't it's cause.
Furthermore, the extent to which the 'problem' is a negative for Michigan is purely speculative. We won't be able to fully assess it for a few more years.
If Michigan lands a kick-ass '16 LB recruit who comes in and plays at an all-star level, no one is going to come back and say 'thank god we didn't red-shirt RJS, Bolden, and Ross" because no one thinks that way. But if we had red-shirted them, we might not have said hypothetical stud recruit. Ditto for some grad year transfer...
The Raymon Taylor situation is one example where the 'problem' was quicly resolved (at least if Lyons is the player I expect him to be).
The point of my whole post is to think about it from a mult-season team perspective rather than looking at the individual examples of success. Because yeah, if you just look at a guy, a 5th year senior is better than a freshman. But if you look at all the other stuff I wrote about, you see it's never that simple.
March 15th, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^
I'm not against red-shirting anybody specifically.
I think there's a small group of guys who should - the one's who can't help now AND have a good chance of being a high-end player in year 5 (all-conference caliber).
I think freshman contributions on special teams tend to get a little underrated.
I think the uncertainty of the payoff has grown and is getting a little underrated.
I think the ancillary benefits (motivation, development, recruiting) get a little underrated.
All in all, I don't think it's worth sweating the marginal guys like Dymonte Thomas or Channing Stribling or Raymon Taylor.
But redshirting works so well on Xbox........
March 15th, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^
What I like about this post is that it emphasizes that there are upsides to not redshirting, but I find the argiments very unconvincing that not redshirting should be the norm.
I'm not going to deal with each point, but a few highlights:
#1. Recruiting: Yes, if you rarely play freshman, that will be a problem with recruiting elite athletes, but no1 was arguing that Jabrill or Green should have redshirted. No1 is arguing against true freshman being given a fair chance at making the 2 deep.
#2 Special teams is important: Yes, but if you need true freshman to make your special teams special, you are in big trouble.
#3-4, #9-11, These are pretty weak arguments and have been dealt with by others (I'm thinking going 12-point counter-argument was a mistake; should have redshirted half the counter-points).
5-8: Each of these counter-arguments are based on the same mistaken premise. Michigan fans don't like to say it because they love to rant about Alabama over-recruiting, but pretty much no team gaurentees a fifth year. Even Hoke admitted that his commitment to recruits is for 4 years only, and it's fair. By the time you are a red-shirt senior, you should have an opportunity cost above that of a middle-of-the-road three-star true freshman (which is generally what the last recruit is for most programs, including the entire BigTen, although OSU is starting to change that).
This last point merits attention, because this equation changes if you are Alabama's Nick Saban or USC's Pete Carrol. They are (were) recruiting juggernauts, and their 25th recruit is (was) often as promising as our #3 recruit (only slight hyperbole). Getting rid of a kid that is struggling is more valuable for such teams, and unfortunately, they can get away with it because young kids never think they will be that guy. This is not to excuse Saban/Carrol for giving in to temptation, but only to acknowledge that the benefits for demi-god recruiters are much greater than they would be for mere mortals. PS: Those who keep accusing OSU of over-recruiting need to stop; there is no evidence to support that, and it makes Michigan fans look petty, and even worse ... dumb.
March 15th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
1. Yeah an elite recruit is going to think he can play anywhere, regardless. My point is that you can entice the odd 4star who will be excited by the cock-sure mentality. It sounds a little bit bad ass.
It's good marketing. (It's also something you can just say without changing anything you actually do.) It's not going to change the world but it might get you a couple recruits a year that you otherwise would not.
2. I kind of disagree here. Some of your best athletes are going to be freshman. You don't necessarily need to be a fully formed LB or DE to be a good special teams player. Sometimes when guys pack on weight they lose speed. Great if you're a DLmen or MLB maybe not so great if you're on special teams. You'll often be right, but not always.
3. ha! I agree they are marginal benefits. I think they add up in the end though.
The bullets could probably be reordered in order of relevance.
5. I think Michigan fans are very comfortable saying this. We expect people like Bellomy and Bielfeldt to be shown the door and no one feels bad about it.
I think the last part - the comparison to a 3 star true freshman is missing the point. The 3 star true freshman grows in a senior. If you redshirt you never get that guy and he never becomes that senior. THAT is the comarison you should be making. Because if you think about it over the years and recruiting cycles the red-shirting takes away scholarships systematically.
March 15th, 2015 at 10:36 AM ^
Thanks for this diary. I don't agree with everything, but it is a good counter to the claims some posters have been making. There are competing issues and needs, and it's a lot easier passing judgment in hindsight.
March 15th, 2015 at 11:33 AM ^
March 15th, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^
And in Hoke's case, his standard for Redshirt/No Redshirt was pretty typical. For almost all the guys who redshirted or didn't, the thought process was:
Is he first or second on the depth chart?
Yes: No redshirt
No: Redshirt
It wasn't always optimal, I admit. Some guys that started off second on the depth chart never really even got playing time. But that also comes down to hindsight a bit. Hoke played guys that were on the depth chart until he became comfortable with his depth chart, then started redshirting the vast majority of guys. That isn't always optimal, because some guys may not have been identified correctly early, some ultimately could have used redshirts later, but it's far and away from a bad strategy by and large.
"If they guy might contribute even a little, you play him." --> agreed
My main intenet, really, is to list the many factors that have to be considered in a redshirt decision. The way most people process it is (5th year senior vs freshman) which is an extremely myopic version of the cost/benefit.
I think the small effects add up, more than one appreciates. The grad school thing really changes the equation though - Stanford almost losing Hogan and Lyons is a big deal and this sort of thing seems like an increasing trend.
McDowell, Nicholson, Reschke and Burbridge are probably their players we had the most interest in. They all have one thing in common. None of them redshirted.
-
For the reward of just David Baas's 2004 season, Dave Brandt in 2000, Mark Bihl in '06, Schilling in '10, Omameh and Barnum in '12, Adami in '97, Kraus in '07, Pearson in '03, Petruziello in '02, Ziemann and Frazier in '99, Mast and Kurt Anderson in '01, Henige in '05, Steve Hutchinson for 2000, and David Molk in 2011, we gave up the recruiting value of saying "we don't redshirt."
-
To have Jake Ryan in 2014, Demens in '12, Vic Hobson in '02, Clint Copenhaver in '98, Shawn Crable in '07, Rob Swett in 1997, and Dave Harris in 2006, we suffered through marginally worse special teams.
-
For Navarre's 2003, Griese's '97, and a 1999 with Tom Brady, some of the backups to Drew Henson, Todd Collins, and Scott Dreisbach had three or four fewer snaps of real game experience under their belts.
-
For acceptance of the fact that recruiting efforts failed to land perfect, ready-made, immediate stars, Michigan had to content itself while wondering what might have been with the compensation of Roy Roundtree's 2012, Steve Breaston in 2006, and the single greatest season by a wide receiver in Michigan history by Jeremy Gallon in 2013.
-
For Stenavich's '05, Huyge's 2011, Jansen's 1998, Backus's 2000, Schofield and Lewan's '13, Tony Pape in 2003, and Jake Long in 2007, Michigan had use some of the 40 annual scholarships they were using on guys they didn't intend to play on guys they really didn't intend to play.
-
To get the 2003 of Bowman and Heuer, the 2002 of Lazarus, the 2008 of Will Johnson, the 2000 of Eric Wilson, and the 1999 of Josh Williams and Rob Renes, Michigan had to give up two or three garbage snaps four years earlier for those guys on the risk that they wouldn't be around as seniors.
-
To have Thomas Gordon in '13, Brandent Englemon in '07, Juilus Curry in '02, and Marcus Ray in 1998 Michigan had to give up any chance of using those scholarships on grad year transfers who might have helped them there instead.
-
To have the services of Tim Jamision in '08, Juaquin Feazell in '98, Rondell Biggs in 2000, James Hall in 1999, and Ryan Van Bergen in 2011, Michigan had to give up the possibility that the next best recruit they could have offered a scholarship to that year would have provided more value.
-
For Tyler Ecker in 2006, Bill Seymour in '01, Mark Campbell in '98, Tim Massaquoi in 2005, Jerame Tuman in 1998, Bennie Joppru in 2002, and a 1999 with Aaron Shea, Michigan had to take the risk that one of those guys might grad transfer to some place where their talents could have been used to hurt Michigan.
-
Had Michigan voluntarily given up the chance to have Gardner run around like a lost puppy while teaching Tate Forcier a lesson, then apply for an uncertain medical hardship waiver for a "back problem", they would have received only a greater assurance of getting Devin Gardner a 2014 season.
- To have Morgan Trent in '08, J.T. Floyd in '12, Andre Weathers in '98, Markus Curry in 2004, and B-Will in 2003, Michigan had to worry about whether those guys would be properly motivated to compete for playing time before then.
Darn. /drops mic.
1. Harbaugh can say "we don't redshirt" as a matter of preferred policy, and then still redshirt kids. That's what OSU does. I'm advocating we follow that lead.
OL should redshirt, as I said in the post. QBs too.
2. Marginally worse special teams because of those guys, maybe marginal backups too, maybe marginally worse performance in their 2nd, 3rd, 4th years. And it's not about just the success stories, it's about marginal benefit of guys who never produce in their 5th years like Justice Hayes. Marginal benefits add up.
3. See 1. QBs
4. I've never argued that INDIVIDUALS don't get better. I'm making an abstract point about a SYSTEM optimal.
5. See 1. OL
6. Michigan also gave up a total of 7 years of scholarships to have those guys around for 25% longer. Was it worth it -- probably, you're picking out grit&grind success stories. But maybe on of those recruits is Mike Hart...
Anyway, I can point to Zack Novak and Spike Albrecht and argue Michigan should only recruit undersized white guys from Indiana. It'd be really stupid for the program to do so but hey it worked great for those individual cases.
7. Not just grad year transfers but PLAYERS period of any class. Freshman (who become seniors), transfers, rewarding walk-ons, etc. Opportunity cost of the scholarship. Do you want to sign 250 guys over 10 years or 220?
8. Hey, I like those guys too! We agree on so much... Hug?
9. Eh, TEs are kind of like OL. I don't mind red-shirting them if they're not strong/athletic enough to make an impact as freshman.
10. There's a whole lot of people who think/thought we'd have been better off without Gardner last year. I loved Devin and thought he'd be great, but in hindsight they might be right. If Devin is slated for graduation, maybe they take a QB in the '12 class and the '15 QB situation starts looking a lot brighter... so, again, it's never as simple as dude is better in year 5 than year 1.
11. Maybe I should make a list of guys who didn't redshirt. It'll won't change anyones mind, but it'll be a fun stroll down memory lane.
March 16th, 2015 at 11:23 PM ^
You could apply all of those guys to every one of those answers. I just broke them up by position because there were so many. Read it as if I'm saying there's like a hundred seasons worth that we got back by ignoring each of your ancillary concerns. Or if you back off on TE and OL and QBs, there's 73 guys left, including Drake Johnson, Allen Gant, Chris Wormley, Jehu Chesson, Jeremy Clark, Matthew Godin, Tom Strobel, and Willie Henry who thanks to voluntary redshirts will still be around in 2016, or not if Michigan chooses not.
What about DL, for whom size and technique are huge? Or LBs who need to learn quick read/reactions? Or receivers, who stand out if they're ludicrous athletes but otherwise dramatically improve year by year with better routes and moves and understanding of coverages just like quarterbacks? Or safeties who are the quarterbacks of the defense these days and who modern offenses pick on the most? I'll make this same case for everyone but RBs and CBs to argue about whether they should give up their 5th years for all the other reasons.
If Ohio State has a weakness it's that Urban has a deserved reputation as a dishonest guy for pulling maneuvers like that. We shouldn't emulate bad things they do because they are sucessful at them.
The value judgements we're making are provable. Attrition is a relatively known rate (the 55%s are rare and speak to major things going on beyond the scope of a program for which redshirting is reguarly an option) , and an experienced starter's projected value to a team is calcuable as is the value of a spot special teamer. We already know a starter versus a special teamer is 20-to-1 because PAN says so.
The last shred of "you don't know" comes from "well coaches see things and players are motivated in ways you plebes don't understand." Three, four years ago I'd give you that, but I've spent the intervening time talking with lots of football guys and I call BUULLLLLLLLSHIT. Coaches want to win and keep their jobs (which is not the same thing as longterm program health). Players want to play, keep their scholarships, stay healhty, and make it to the NFL. Both groups include some of the most highly motivated people in the country. Players and coaches also plot just like any other groups of people: some are forward-thinking and others are very now-oriented. Defeating our psychology and doing the right thing is what we use hard things like math for. The team is best served by having better, bigger, faster, stronger, better coached, better prepared players and that's what redshirting gives you for pennies on the dollar.
Thirty more recruits every 5 years is yummy, but the value of extending the bottom of your recruiting class is far less than an option on a 5th year on your recruiting class. You presume because Michigan averages 3.7 stars that we'll get 4-stars, but every recruit is a guy you have to sell on the school and the program, and extending the class brings diminishing returns.
What you're getting is first to sixth guy(s) they were going to offer after Jason Foster ('96), Will Peterson (97), Deitan Dubuc, Greg Brooks, James Taylor, Jacob Stewart, Spencer Brinton, Paul Sarantos, Brandent Englemon, Grant DeBenedictis, Andre Criswell, John Ferrara, Marrell Evans, Justin Feagin, Teric Jones, D.J. Williamson, Tamani Carter, Reon Dawson, Brady Pallante, or whoever ends up being the last guy in this class. A few more swings even in that pool is bound to produce some good players--never a Heisman--but optional 5th years are dramatically better bets, AND they're optional, so if they're not better bets you can still go recruit the next guy down the list. At best you find an Englemon; some years you're offering the sixth guy you wanted after Andre Criswell.
What you're talking about are ONLY ancillary benefits. There are ancillary benefits of redshirting too: a year to get acclimated to college life and classes, less coursework in individual semesters (though this is offset at Michigan by NCAA's credit hour demands and Michigan's annoying habit of making high-level courses fewer credit hours, and that most 5th years graduate in December), a far lower chance of transferring, and for the player it makes him more worth the coaches' limited time.
The overwhelming evidence supports redshirting guys who won't be playing valuable snaps (Wilson played valuable snaps) because it's a 1-for-1 trade of a year when a player is of not much use to you, for a year when you can keep him if he's of use to you and don't have to if he's not.
And to address something from the thread above: Harbaugh's Stanford 80-percent retention rate times $15 = $12.00 = FOUR times $3.00.
-------------------
Side note: stop saying Mike Hart when you want to point out a 3-star. Hart went to a tiny school in NY who popped onto their radars because he was suddenly shredding NY State records, and as soon as they saw his film Michigan was all over him despite having Dave Underwood, Jerome Jackson, Pierre Rembert, and Tim Bracken ahead, 4-star Max Martin in his class, AND 5-star all-everything Kevin Grady already committed for the following season. That was a weird under-the-radar thing that happens less often now that private (OLSM) and magnet (Cass Tech) schools recruit more. You aren't getting a potential Mike Hart when you take a consensus three-star, or a Jake Ryan for that matter. You get those guys by culling the lower ranks of high schools where standouts are beating up on future dentists and bloggers, and getting lucky enough to stumble upon the rare thing, know what you've found, and he wants to come to your school. Because Michigan got lucky once does not raise the chances that we will get even more lucky in a completely different scenario.
Let me say that I appreciate your thoughtful posts and comments in general on this blog and spirited response to my diary, even if laden with disdain.
Responses:
- "...Willie Henry who thanks to voluntary redshirts will still be around in 2016, or not if Michigan chooses not. " Or not, if THEY choose not. Henry can go get his Mundy on if he is annoyed by rotating with Mone and company.
- The number of freshman starters at most of the positions seems to go up every year, and it's the non-traditional positions (like LB) where change seems to be happening most. People have been playing freshman RB and CB commonly since the 90s, but now we're seeing more QBs, Safeties, LBs, etc.
- Freshman today are far better prepared than ever. Part of this is all the training information, position academies, off-season 7-7, early enrollment and a multitude of other reasons why this ain't 1996.
- OL is still OL and size is required but DL is about a combination of speed and size so raw athleticism matters a great deal. You get a lot more Mone's and Clark's than you do Cole's.
- Freshman WRs make huge impacts all over the country. I usually argue about how the position is about SKILL far more than most people think, but it must be acknowledged that freshman play the position all the damn time. There's a role for people like Funchess or a healthy Drake Harris, even if it's limited.
- There's nothing really dishonest about the Meyer/Carrol redshirt policy. It's about being upfront about the goal - trying to play the best people right away and viewing a redshirt as a backup plan for guys who can't cut it.
- If I accept your 20 to 1 ratio (which seems reasonable in a vacum) I don't know what epic series of caluclations you would have to go through to arrive a legitimate expected value. First you have to differentiate between the 20 PAN starters who are too good to bench as freshman and the guys that can be redshirted. I imagine this drops 20 to 1 to more like 15 to 1. Attrition's probably the easiest part, and (more spitballing here) now you're down to around 10-1 give or take. Run through all the other factors and probabilities and you'll end up pretty close to the on the ground reality -- lots of 0.8-1.1 to 1.0 decisions with large standard deviations resulting in a whole damn lot of freshman are playing on special teams, despite the fan angst.
- I don't dispute that coaches are trying to save their job, but I'll flip the script here and argue that some of the most stable, comfortable coaches around are the biggest advocates of this approach (Kelly, Carrol, Meyer). They are also known for being forward-thinkers. If anything the much-maligned burning of red-shirts tends to bring fan hostility and make the hot seats even hotter. It's one thing if you can offer hope at the end of the rainbow (a la Rich Rod circa 2008-09), it's another if you're burning up your bond notes to try to get the camp fire lit.
- The interesting part of this debate is that we both think we have math on our side. I suspect that's because it's too subjective to draw a clear answer.
- It's not about extending the BOTTOM of your recruiting class. Players are drawn to opportunities. I don't think Lyons comes here if Taylor is back and I don't think Marshall comes close if Taylor is around. Remember a couple years ago when Hoke was telling high 4 star LBs and '12 OL that there was no room at the inn? Montae Nicholson - thanks but sorry. Those are guys they take if there's a few less 5th years around. You can't assume that the replacement guy is a 3-star anymore than you can assume any given scholarship will go to such a player. There might be some merit to this if people committed in order corresponding to recruiting profile but they generally don't. Sure, there are the end of class last minute guys like Norfleet and Higdon, but having an extra scholarship to fill that you know about and can plan for years in advance (vs the uncertainity of the 5th year situation) is a different scenario. It'd be more accurate to assume median value.
- The extra guys aren't an ANCILLARY benefit, they're a significant one. The Mike Cox scenario is downright trivial, but spending 25% more scholarship budget is not. That's one less draft pick and the cumulative value of these adds up fast.
- The ancillary benefits you listed for redshirting apply to the individual but not the program. (at least the legitimate ones). They are good for student athletes but irrelevant for football programs.
- The assertion that redshirting suppresses attrition is bunk.
- "it's a 1-for-1 trade of a year when a player is of not much use to you, for a year when you can keep him if he's of use to you and don't have to if he's not" I mean, if you're still saying this all I can do is throw up my hands, sigh, and then shrug.
- To quote Lesley Gore: It's my diary and I'll bring up Mike Hart if I want to.
- I remember Hart's recruitment well and there was certainly a lot of buzz in AA by summer about him but his offer list and rankings were unexceptional. He was the future-dentist drubbing kid you described but there's been other small school guy and big school guys whose circumstances indicate diamond-in-the-ruff status. I don't really see the point here when Jake Ryan was hardly recruited either. It's not hard to go through the history of seemingly head-scratching offers and find success. Walk-ons can produce Glasgows to Kovacs to JJ Watts. The 2star/3star value bin is far more likely to produce a stud than those spots. Yeah, the odds are they're not going to be all-americans but the data-haters that point out all the 3-star starters on the super bowl rosters do speak to a truth regarding the inherent unpredictability of recruiting. At some point X number of 3 stars is better than a smaller number of 4 and 5 stars.
- Plus, you know, Harbaugh's gotta pretty damn impressive track record with these fringe recruits. Giving him a few extra schollies is like handing Beilein another Spike/Caris/Trey.
What if Justice Hayes becomes the 3rd down back at Oregon State and they come to AA and pull off an upset in September? How would we be feeling about that red-shirt decision then?
What if monkeys come out my ass?
Seriously, there's no point in addressing something that dumb.
March 19th, 2015 at 11:28 PM ^
But I would venture to guess that you would have one sore ass. Go ask Urban, he would know.
I don't agree with all of OPs arguements, but I am really enjoying the debate and the polite nature in which it is conducted. This content is what sets this place apart, very hard to find.
Comments