Because almost all of the guys who aren’t good enough to play at all their first year also won’t be good enough to keep around for a fifth year anyway. So if we’re only going to have him here for four years in any case, why not get something from him that first year, rather than nothing at all?
I don’t think we’re obligated to take that into account, especially since, even if a player did get better as a result of a rs freshman year, he’s under no obligation at all to stick around for a fifth year. Why risk having another team benefit from one of our scholarship years?
Because you’re not getting something when the player is not ready to play meaningful minutes. Not being able to predict the future, even the possibility that we might need the player for fifth year because of injury or unexpected attrition is worth it when weighed against playing him for mop up minutes at the end of games. The latter has no value to him or the team. He’s not entitled to a fifth year. If we don’t need him or he doesn’t develop, we get the scholarship back after 4. There’s no downside to the red shirt. Plus, it gives him a chance to grad transfer.
FWIW, while Davis is really struggling to defend without fouling this year I don’t think Sophomore Morgan plays over Junior Moe nor Sophomore Teske, neither. I contend that Michigan’s roster is deeper than we’re used to it being, especially going into next season.
Nunez is not a 2 next year. Maybe eventually but not from the jump. At this point he’s freshman Zak Irvin. Nunez won’t be initiating anything. If he plays, whether he redshirts or not, he will be a 3 point shooter. At least that’s how I see it
IWell, yes you are. Even if he’s only a second tier backup, he relieves someone else of having to play those minutes. And he’s getting actual game experience, which can only help with his development.
And how does giving a player a chance to grad tranfer help us win games? What you left out is that even if we decide we DO need him for a fifth year, he can still bail on us and take the talent that we expended resources developing somewhere else.
You’re out on another argumentative limb. Of course there can be advantages, amid a good many variables, including for the player. And helping the player is a good thing, too. You say squeezing even a few minutes out of a kid is preferable because most kids aren’t around in year five. Maybe. But all things being equal most coaches would rather have four very productive years from a player who really provides help. So. . . getting back to the OP, IF Beilein has the luxury THEN RS’ing Nunez might be a luxury of a kind Beilein has rarely been able to avail of.
Yes, of course a coach would rather have years 2-5 be really productive. But as I pointed out in another post, that’s not a very realistic expectation. Aside from the fact that it’s hardly ever happened under Beilein, we have no guarantee that a player won’t bail on his fifth year, no matter how good he is.
In this example, I’m good with anyone else playing those minutes instead of giving minutes to a player who’s not ready, even if doing so creating other problems (MAAR logging too many minutes, Poole being inconsistent, etc.). I’m never in favor of just giving a player minutes, I’d rather they bust down the door and take minutes or take a starting job.
This is why I was fine with Beilein being very patient with Livers–I believe that him taking the job from Duncan instead of just being awarded the job will be better for Livers’ long term development and could benefit him for the remainder of his time at Michigan. Being patient with a player and not just tossing him out on the court could actually accelerate his development. Coach B believes in earning your minutes in practice and proving your progress before seeing the court.
That said, if Nunez pulls a Caris and Beilein is compelled to burn his redshirt because he’s too good to redshirt, that will be a great problem to have.
As long as we’re pointing to Beilein’s history here, when was the last time that a 5th year player that Michigan wanted to keep bailed on the program and left them in the lurch?
Walk-ons can play the last minute or two of a blowout. The experience factor in those minutes is negligible. If you don’t red shirt him, there is zero chance that he is available for a fifth year; if you do red shirt him, and he develops, that fifth year is available. Yes, he could grad transfer any way, but he could stay if he nows that he’ll be a contributor.
I’m actually on Inmycourt’s side. Has a wing player ever been redshirted under Beilein? Not saying they shoudn’t, but I don’t think it’s likely. Even Ibi found his way on the court a couple times.
A grad transfer could be good for the player even if it’s not for the team.
His argument isn’t “will be RS or won’t he”, it’s that there is no value in RS anybody. Which is a dumb argument.
How soon we forget. Thanks. That still makes me shake my head.
I suppose that at least we’re at least talking about a medical redshirt situation and not part of a five year plan for the player.
I will reiterate my original point and question-The value in redshirting someone doesn’t come until their fifth year. How many players under Beilein have redshirted and then actually HAD that productive 5th year?
As I said, it sounds good in theory, but rarely gives much of a payoff in reality.
That’s a bit of an oversimplification. Some players may need that year to become physically strong enough to compete at this level. Some may need that year to adjust to the competition level.
Look how much a year off helped Kam Chatman this season.
As an aside, it seems like the biggest issue for Nunez is his handle is shaky. Matthews needs some work on that too. My question is, who have we seen really improve their handle under JB?
Not sure if “improved their handle” is the best way to phrase it for these guys but Zak Irvin and Nik Stauskas certainly made significant strides as primary ball handlers from when they came in to when they left.
Hardaway also significantly improved his handles from his freshman year to junior year