If Seble is reading this thread ... he's been pretty good about these types of threads recently.

Regarding #4, this seems like it might have some unintended consequences.  For example, I return 6 players: 0 guards, 1 SF, 5 post players.  I recruit six freshman and my best freshman is a post player and my worst freshman is a guard.  My post player is unlikely to take the redshirt because he'll be the 7th most talented player on the team, correct?  And my guard who may be in line for some serious playing time is more than happy to take the redshirt because he's the 12 most talented player on the team.

Or is there another way you are looking at "talent"?  I know that a lot of D2 and D3 coaches try to redshirt their most talented freshman first and foremost.

To somewhat contradict myself from the post above .... but I'm guessing on the interpretation of #4 ....

My strategy is to sign a "small forward" every other season and then redshirt him.  There are always two ahead of this player on the depth chart and since I don't put those players elsewhere on the depth chart, the freshman wouldn't play if he didn't take the redshirt..  (Technically there could be more, but I have previously signed players 2 seasons and then 4 seasons ago to explicitly play small forward for me.)

But I don't always sign players that are listed as a SF, in fact I rarely do.  Often I sign listed SG or PF players that are well rounded and use them as a small forward.

If I sign a SF that would otherwise look to take the redshirt but my roster does not have another player with the 'SF' label next to his name, am I going to run into real problems getting him to redshirt because he just assumes he'll be first on the depth chart?

If I sign a SF that would otherwise look to take the redshirt but my roster does not have another player with the 'SF' label next to his name, am I going to run into real problems getting him to redshirt because he just assumes he'll be first on the depth chart?

If you read Seble's statement, it makes no mention whatsoever of depth chart...it seems he's basing it on overall talent...i.e. he used 11th and 4th as examples, not in any way making reference to depth chart.

Posted by kujayhawk on 6/6/2012 1:23:00 PM (view original):
To somewhat contradict myself from the post above .... but I'm guessing on the interpretation of #4 ....

My strategy is to sign a "small forward" every other season and then redshirt him.  There are always two ahead of this player on the depth chart and since I don't put those players elsewhere on the depth chart, the freshman wouldn't play if he didn't take the redshirt..  (Technically there could be more, but I have previously signed players 2 seasons and then 4 seasons ago to explicitly play small forward for me.)

But I don't always sign players that are listed as a SF, in fact I rarely do.  Often I sign listed SG or PF players that are well rounded and use them as a small forward.

If I sign a SF that would otherwise look to take the redshirt but my roster does not have another player with the 'SF' label next to his name, am I going to run into real problems getting him to redshirt because he just assumes he'll be first on the depth chart?

I actually think that problem exists now.

you really need to change your name to a beer that is available locally for the rest of us. or at least name yourself after a less tasty beer. its cruel man!

Posted by abitaamber on 6/6/2012 1:34:00 PM (view original):
If I sign a SF that would otherwise look to take the redshirt but my roster does not have another player with the 'SF' label next to his name, am I going to run into real problems getting him to redshirt because he just assumes he'll be first on the depth chart?

If you read Seble's statement, it makes no mention whatsoever of depth chart...it seems he's basing it on overall talent...i.e. he used 11th and 4th as examples, not in any way making reference to depth chart.

Agreed.  Which is why I have the two posts which I admit are kind of contradictory.  I'm really just seeking clarification for what "overall talent" means.

Posted by cornfused on 6/6/2012 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I'm wondering what effect this will have on the strategy of waiting until game 25 or whatever to redshirt a player.

I tried that 4/5 seasons ago all the way up to the Conf Championship game. I took him out of my rotation completely, he sat the bench the whole season, and the SOB still wouldn't accept it. He kept dropping to like a 3/4 WE every time. So needless to say I had a 4 year guy with all ZEROs across the board for every stat, hardly any improvement in his Freshman season, and only 3 years of eligibity left and 3 years of stats.

Seble,

Once you publish these and the other updates, please make sure to update the FAQ. The FAQ is really out of date in a lot of areas and needs a complete update itself.

Posted by milkamania on 6/6/2012 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 6/6/2012 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure I agree with the logic on No. 3 of the "in all other cases" section. 

I realize the intent here is to probably do away with the practice of giving/removing/regiving of the redshirt until you get a favorable RNG result and the kid takes it with no/minimal penalty. That said, it seems illogical to me that there's no counterweight given for where a kid will be more favorable to accept the redshirt as the season progresses and said player has yet to see a minute of live action. As I'm reading the above, the kid will respond the same if I offer a redshirt 14 times in the preseason or once a day for 14 days into the season, and that doesn't seem right. In the first case, the kid might be resistant thinking he can still contribute that year if given the chance. In the latter case, more than half a season has progressed and in that case a kid might finally be starting to see the writing on the wall and begin looking out for his longterm future, in which case saving the year of eligibility (so he can transfer, so he can play more at the school, whatever) would seem to be the better option.

I'm also a little confused by the "if you've told a kid he will not be redshirted" phrase. Is there a way we can tell a kid he won't be redshirted? Or will this now be the "default" belief of every recruit UNLESS they're informed there will be a redshirt? I'm just confused since start and minutes promises are covered under another line, and those would seem to me to be the only way a kid could get the impression within the game that he's not going to be redshirted.

I disagree with you here.  What you are getting at, if I read correctly, is that leaving a guy off the depth chart all season and then giving him the redshirt the day before the season ends should convince him to take it without penalty, as he isn't going to play all season anyway.   That to me seems to be a loophole to try and get around informing him during recruiting.   Nobody would ever inform a recruit, then they would all just wait til the end of the year to do it. 

You are reading me correctly milk, at least to an extent, but to clarify/extend on the point I was trying to make...

I'm NOT saying that I should be able to leave a kid out of the lineup and be insured the kid will take a redshirt after Game 26 without penalty. I AM saying there should be a greatly increased chance the kid will take the redshirt -- at that point either 1. the kid wants to stay with my program, in which case why wouldn't he accept the chance at a free year of eligibility and play 4 instead of 3?  or 2. the kid is completely hacked off from riding the pine all season, in which case why wouldn't he take the redshirt and then bolt for the nearest exit, still with 4 years of playing time available rather than 3? I can think of very few cases where a kid with 0 minutes of PT at season's end, if confronted with the chance to call his non-year a redshirt season, would say no, coach, let's just burn this year.

The penalty though shouldn't be the kid not taking the redshirt. The penalty should be the kid hitting the bricks like a mad hornet and transferring if he's of the me-first persuasion who doesn't like sitting. It should actually be the case now as the loophole you point out exists in the status quo as well. If seble wants to tweak the transfer logic/percentage, he'd find a favorable audience in me to that proposal.

My biggest point though is that I don't think you can solely base a player''s reaction solely upon the number of redshirt attempts (which seems to be the proposal seble has listed), but that you also need to take into consideration things like when those attempts took place (as well as the personality of the kid, but I assume that's hidden in the equation somewhere...)

when does this all happen?

I will scan through the comments here and post a response later on today. 

Just as a general rule, when changes are actually released there will be mention of it in the Release Notes.  If there is no mention, then it means the changes haven't gone into effect yet.

I think a broadcast message with a link to the Release Notes on each conference's CC in each world is deserving in this case given the broad scope of changes being implemented.

Seble, does the lack of any mention of how many players/upperclassmen you already have at that [listed] position indicate that this will no longer be a factor in a player accepting the redshirt?

the problem with basing RS acceptance on the depth chart is that it invites us to game the system by putting a guy who is excellent low on the depth chart for that instant or for exhibitions or the like

the problem with basing RS acceptance on position rankings is - as noted by others - that official positions have no significance.  My two best SFs may be a PG and a SG.  The freshman SF might well be my third or fourth best guy for the 3 spot, but my only "SF" - how resolve that?

Also, players who are highly ranked should not react well to the RS. If an A+ team, with 5 great PGs signs the #3 PG, he should freak out over a RS.