Right. I think Hardaway is the best example on this but then when you consider that was with Lavall here… plus Timmy had a little UTEP two step DNA to help him out maybe.
Max Bielfeldt is another. Not sure how badly the coaches actually tried to get him to stay, but he had a much better 5th year for Indiana than he ever had with us. In hindsight, we probably would have liked to have kept him.
They didn’t try to get him to stay. They wanted to give the minutes to the new guys.
I was waiting for Captain Cankles to come up. If memory serves me right (and just having forgotten about Horford makes me include this caveat), Bielfeldt was told to explore his options for his 5th year. Moe had agreed to come to Michigan but hadn’t signed his letter and Beilein was still waiting on a decision from Jaylen Brown. Austin Hatch was still under athletic scholarship at the time.
Before Beilein evolved in his recruiting (so, pre-Tyus Battle), he didn’t oversign. The only window when Michigan may have wanted Bielfeldt to come back for his 5th year would have come after Brown chose Cal and after Hatch became a medical scholarship. By then, Max had moved on and was comfortable transferring to IU. Props to him for having a great grad transfer year.
- Will a specific Freshman contribute his Freshman year?
- Is there a precedent for 5th year, redshirted players, to contribute?
- Will a specific RS Junior player contribute next year as a 5th year RS Senior?
For practical purposes question #2 is never even going to be asked. Why would that question be asked? The answers to questions #1 and #3 are the only answers that are needed to make actual relevant decisions. I am of course assuming that upon redshirting someone JB explains that the scholarship is for 4 years and giving the 5th year is at JB’s discretion (i.e. based upon the answer to question #3). I don’t think that it is a big assumption either. I think that is how JB handles and explains the redshirt situation to his redshirt candidates.
Again, as noted, if the answer to #2 is “no, never” or “very rarely”, then there is little or no real benefit to the program in redshirting someone. #2 is definitely worth asking. The value of redshirting is only, ever in year 5.
That of course raises the question of why you would bother to redshirt a guy in the first place if you’re not going to make any attempt to keep him around for his fifth year, even when he’s starting to show real development (which Beilfeldt was)? If you’re only going to give a fifth year to guys who are quality starters in their fourth year, there will be even fewer redshirts who qualify.
One reason could be future roster flexibility, unless you think Beilfeldt > Jaylen Brown
Assuming JB explains that there is no 5th year scholarship guarantee, then JB is not risking anything in order to get a potential benefit (as small as that benefit might be). The extent of the benefit is debatable but why bother? It is sufficient to recognize there is no cost and there is a potential benefit. End of story.
Jeez, how many bad takes can one guy have…
I don’t get your logic. if redshirting benefit the student athletes, and in vast majority of cases, they do, what is wrong to go for it if it does not harm the program.
You said all but I would like to add my two cents. RS benefits the players, as they can potentially get their 5th year graduate school paid off, either stay or graduate transfer. As long as there is no harm to the program, I see no reason not extend the benefit to the players.
Each time he takes the time to type one out
Because redshirting IS a net loss to the program, unless you actually get that productive fifth year out of the guy, which, as demonstrated, almost never happens here. In every other case, redshirting uses a scholarship year (a limited resource) and gets nothing back for it.
As noted below, there is a cost to redshirting. I thought that would be obvious.
How many times can one guy resort to insults and snark because they have no actual facts or arguments? Only you can answer that.
One of the benefits of redshirting is to set your rotation. Players that are redshirting are put on the scout team and the players that will play get their reps in practice. It’s not a huge deal, but it can help the team. It really has nothing to do with how great the player would be in year 5.
I don’t see the difference between taking a kid you know is likely going to the NBA after 2 years (is that a net loss?) vs taking a kid knowing he’ll need to redshirt and you likely get only 3 years out of him. Reality is that few players contribute in each of their 4 years. If the kid isn’t going to play any meaningful minutes in his first year, it’s in the kid’s best interest (something any decent coach will consider) to preserve the possibility of a grad transfer down the road.
I fully expected this to take a turn by now. Something like “why are you offering a player who you think will need a RS year instead of offering all of the unsigned 5 star guys out there?”
not playing Davis last season IS a net loss to the program?