RB Nothing to see here ! ( for ATX )
- Thread starter RED ED
- Start date
"College football programs would rather not play true freshmen."
Huh? That stopped being true a long time ago - especially true now with the $$$ invloved.
The part in purple: No, I think it is still mostly true. Ideally, as a college football coach, you'd want your freshmen to come in, learn the offensive, defensive, and special teams systems, and use their 1st year for growth and development. Putting a kid out there before they're ready can have detrimental effects for their development.
However, in this Portal and NIL iteration of college football, playing true freshman is almost a necessity. You're paying some 4* RB $400,000, you don't want those $$$s just sitting on the bench. Also, there is the very real possibility that you won't have that player on your roster next year. So yeah, even though I think most coaches would rather not play true freshman, the reality is, they have to. And also, it needs to be pointed out that today, moreso than anytime previously, with all the camps, advancements in nutrition, training, early enrollment, etc, more young men are arriving on campus where they're physically ready to play. But even then, there is the mental side of the game and that is the part that often kept freshman off the field especially the 1st year.
I think this discussion requires one to remember the game has significantly changed over the years. There have been a number of rules changes since I became a fan that have changed the equation. (FYI, when I became a fan, freshmen weren't allowed to play varsity, period. Johnny 'The Jet' had to wait until his sophomore year to play.)
THEN, when it was allowed, you had to be very careful if you burned a freshman's redshirt year. Unless he was a genuine, true-blue impact player, it was always better to wait. Once he stepped on the field, he automatically 'lost' a year. There have been some times when our coaches have made some truly knuckleheaded decisions about burning one for a kid.
THEN, the rule got changed so that freshmen could keep a redshirt if they 'only' played in four games. This always seemed like a strange rule to me. Why the hell have redshirts at all if some still got to play?
In my mind, this new rule is the way it should've always been. Straight-forward and simple. With this rule, it encourages coaches to play their best freshmen, at least some. Even if if they don't get significant PT, it: 1) It gives them a feel for a real-live game; and 2) it definitely helps with their retention.
THEN, when it was allowed, you had to be very careful if you burned a freshman's redshirt year. Unless he was a genuine, true-blue impact player, it was always better to wait. Once he stepped on the field, he automatically 'lost' a year. There have been some times when our coaches have made some truly knuckleheaded decisions about burning one for a kid.
THEN, the rule got changed so that freshmen could keep a redshirt if they 'only' played in four games. This always seemed like a strange rule to me. Why the hell have redshirts at all if some still got to play?
In my mind, this new rule is the way it should've always been. Straight-forward and simple. With this rule, it encourages coaches to play their best freshmen, at least some. Even if if they don't get significant PT, it: 1) It gives them a feel for a real-live game; and 2) it definitely helps with their retention.
Advances in nutrition as well as training and camps like 7 on 7 mean these kids are showing up to campus better prepared for the transition than past generations. Especially if you are talking about 3, 4 & 5 star players like Nebraska is recruiting. Granted there is nothing like actual game reps but they are doing what they can to prepare.
I don't buy it. Some coaches deep down sure- but 100% want to win now and are expecting offensive talent to commit right away, knowing full well they might only be there a year or two. Development is the job of the "other team" - whatever team they are about to transfer from in a year... in the cesspool that is now "college" football.
Just a FWIW update from our eagar-beaver, super-sleuth, Wilson Dittman.
He is reporting that his sources are telling him Nelson's charges are expected to be dropped or reduced to a misdemeanor when he has a preliminary Florida court hearing (via Zoom) in another week.
He is reporting that his sources are telling him Nelson's charges are expected to be dropped or reduced to a misdemeanor when he has a preliminary Florida court hearing (via Zoom) in another week.
My understanding is that Florida laws say any charge of assault of a pregnant woman is automatically an up-front felony. But the judge can then do anything he wants with it once it gets to his/her court.
Keep in mind, I'm just the messenger here. I'm on record for dropping the hot head. But, to be fair, DW is saying we all are operating on misinformation. He says the real story is different than what was initially reported. Guess we'll see what happens.
Not sure what actually went done but seems that it must not be as originally reported if the charges are being dropped.
I put it up on post #5 /. how small the actions could have been
So it would seem. Here's my issue with all of this reporting. They can dismiss the charges all they want, the man's reputation has been sullied and that's the unfortunate part of the situation. As my momma used to tell me about dating boys, "Once you've lost your reputation, you can never get it back." Bottom line is that forever more, these headlines are going to follow him which may or may not make it easier for another woman to make accusations about him.
When a woman is raped, her name is redacted from what is published. Seems to me that perhaps, in these situations, the same opportunity should be afforded to the accuser. Not saying this is what happened, but if the evidence was merely fingernail scratches, it's pretty damn easy to make your own marks. No easy answers, I'm afraid.
Can the original poster RedEd or one of the mods change the title of the thread to something less damning maybe like "Mekhi Nelson situation"?
Dittman has some sort of "in" with the Nelson Camp. He said at the very beginning when the TMZ story first broke that it was more sensationalized bullsh*t than real.
WD said on his podcast that the story he was told by his sources was light years different from was TMZ reported. I didn't discount the accuracy of what WD was told but I was like, "Duh, OF COURSE the Nelson Camp is going to downplay it, Wilson. It doesn't mean what you were told is true."
Whether it's significant or not, is up for you to decide but he also reported on his podcast that it was his girlfriend who picked him up when he got out of jail.
Listen, I find it incredibly awkward to find myself defending Wilson Dittman. I'm not a subscriber but I will confess that I've checked him out once and a while, especially when some controversy hits because he's become (for me) a reliable inside scooper.
Somewhere here, you can find multiple posts where I've skewered the kid as a shameless, click-baiting troll. But -- especially in this day and age -- I believe its important to keep an open mind and not fall into the kneejerk, "automatic response" trap.
To be fair, his "Oh My God" transgressions happened when he was still a wet-behind-the-ears high schooler. Did any of us ever screw up at that age?
Hell, even now the kid's got to be no more than 19 or 20 years old. To have started and built up the YouTube following he now has is pretty damn impressive no matter what you think of him.
Last edited:
