Welcome to UL Travis Bureau

[RaisingCajun08]

_ How is it weak? The redshirt was yanked off of JD in Sept 93. It basically saved a coaching career. Definitely saved a season. Maybe this turns out the same way? _

I always think it is better to red-shirt a player if that is possible. It is better for the kid in most aspects. They get a chance to learn the system & they get a 5th year of school paid for. After all, they are student athletes.

But if this turns out the same as it did in 93, I dont think I could argue not my previous points.

[RaginCajunPie]

I agree that red-shirting a player is usually in the best interest of a player. Usually, they need that first year just to adjust to being in college (which most find is a LOT different than highschool!) But sometimes the kids actually get depressed that first year if they are not playing. I saw it happen to several student-athletes I worked with. I guess some identify so closely with being an athlete that it's hard on their self-esteem when they are not playing. Each case is just different, and you can only hope the coach makes the best call for the team and the individual.

Either way, a player can still get 5 years of scholarship. Either they get the red-shirt year paid for and then 4 years of eligibility after that, or if they play their first year they can get their first 4 years of eligibility and a 5th year after their eligibility is up all paid for. The NCAA allows that so that those freshmen who do play don't get "screwed" (for lack of a better word).

[Pirogue]

_
Either way, a player can still get 5 years of scholarship.

NICE!
I was unaware of that