Willie idea for 'redshirt' controversy - 5 years to compete - 4 post seasons. Period.

[Idaho]

2 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

are you having a difficult time wrapping your head around it?

it's pretty simple. and exponentially more simple than what we have currently.

 

No... I actually quoted you and agreed that it's pretty simple. "Exactly... 5 years....4 years of post season - very simple."

Are you having a hard time wrapping your head around me 100% agreeing with you?

[Formally140]

28 minutes ago, ionel said:

Why does there need to be an injury exemption? 

Shrug, only if you want lawsuits for inequitable treatment 

[Husker_Du]

1 hour ago, Idaho said:

No... I actually quoted you and agreed that it's pretty simple. "Exactly... 5 years....4 years of post season - very simple."

Are you having a hard time wrapping your head around me 100% agreeing with you?

lol. sorry. apparently i was.

[gimpeltf]

1 hour ago, Idaho said:

No... I actually quoted you and agreed that it's pretty simple. "Exactly... 5 years....4 years of post season - very simple."

Are you having a hard time wrapping your head around me 100% agreeing with you?

 

Just now, Husker_Du said:

lol. sorry. apparently i was.

He's not used to people agreeing with him!

[Husker_Du]

52 minutes ago, Formally140 said:

Shrug, only if you want lawsuits for inequitable treatment 

if you have 5 to get in 4, isn't that covered? 

[Formally140]

1 minute ago, Husker_Du said:

if you have 5 to get in 4, isn't that covered? 

“Other people have gotten extra years because of injuries. Why is this new arbitrary rule preventing Jonnny from getting the same chances”

[gimpeltf]

12 minutes ago, Formally140 said:

“Other people have gotten extra years because of injuries. Why is this new arbitrary rule preventing Jonnny from getting the same chances”

Originally it was rare to see many 6th years given because the intent was that they had 2 season ending injury years.

It became more common as the rule was loosened and allowed one serious injury year if that came after an earlier red shirt year (I think as a first year but not sure).

I don't think the theory behind this idea was to give them an equal chance to what was before because it was getting out of hand.

[Formally140]

1 hour ago, gimpeltf said:

Originally it was rare to see many 6th years given because the intent was that they had 2 season ending injury years.

It became more common as the rule was loosened and allowed one serious injury year if that came after an earlier red shirt year (I think as a first year but not sure).

I don't think the theory behind this idea was to give them an equal chance to what was before because it was getting out of hand.

I remember. I wrestled when the rule’s became looser and decided not to go for a 6th year. That doesn’t stop people from using that tactic now that there’s been half a decade of the looser rules

[Mike Parrish]

1 minute ago, Formally140 said:

I remember. I wrestled when the rule’s became looser and decided not to go for a 6th year. That doesn’t stop people from using that tactic now that there’s been half a decade of the looser rules

It's not even 'looser', it's just a constant accretion of new exemptions and clauses to handle specific cases that's the problem.

Like using nested epicycles to explain apparent retrograde behavior in planetary orbits instead of understanding that orbits are ellipses and not perfect circles.

[mspart]

I think the basketball story is a good illustration that the redshirt situation does not just apply to Wrestling, it applies to all sports, Olympic Redshirt excluded perhaps. 

I think it would be really tough to get FB and BB to agree to anything other than what they have.   I sympathize with the effort but don't see much hope.

mspart

[gimpeltf]

27 minutes ago, Formally140 said:

I remember. I wrestled when the rule’s became looser and decided not to go for a 6th year. That doesn’t stop people from using that tactic now that there’s been half a decade of the looser rules

But that has nothing to do with Willie's idea other than he's making a suggestion to eliminate these looser (or whatever term you want to use) rules.

[Formally140]

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

It's not even 'looser', it's just a constant accretion of new exemptions and clauses to handle specific cases that's the problem.

Like using nested epicycles to explain apparent retrograde behavior in planetary orbits instead of understanding that orbits are ellipses and not perfect circles.

Hence why I said parents/athletes will use those exemptions to sue if they aren’t getting the same treatment.

Which in no way diminishes my point. 

Also, the end result is that the rules/requirements have loosened. Being pedantic about exactly why the rules are looser seems.. superfluous 

[Formally140]

10 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

But that has nothing to do with Willie's idea other than he's making a suggestion to eliminate these looser (or whatever term you want to use) rules.

And I’m saying the biggest obstacle will be people sueing over not getting the same opportunity 

[ionel]

7 minutes ago, Formally140 said:

And I’m saying the biggest obstacle will be people sueing over not getting the same opportunity 

What laws in which states allow them to sue for such missed opportunities?

[Formally140]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

What laws in which states allow them to sue for such missed opportunities?

Equity laws, especially concerning education and athletics could be exploited. Especially “lack of access to opportunity”.

Do I think these are valid reasons? No. Do I think it’ll happen anyway. Yes

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, Formally140 said:

Hence why I said parents/athletes will use those exemptions to sue if they aren’t getting the same treatment.

Which in no way diminishes my point. 

Also, the end result is that the rules/requirements have loosened. Being pedantic about exactly why the rules are looser seems.. superfluous 

Understanding how or why things ended up that way isn't important?

I'm sure your solutions will be the bestest then.

[Formally140]

9 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Understanding how or why things ended up that way isn't important?

I'm sure your solutions will be the bestest then.

I’m pointing out what the obstacles will be.. not trying to make myself sound super duper smart 

[Mike Parrish]

Just now, Formally140 said:

I’m pointing out what the obstacles will be.. not trying to make myself sound super duper smart 

Mission accomplished.

[Husker_Du]

there doesn't have to be a rule that governs all sports.

this rule for wrestling (where TR Frosh can wrestle in 5 dates) is a wrestling-only rule.

there's no reason they can't amend it to whatever the hell they please

[gimpeltf]

1 hour ago, Formally140 said:

And I’m saying the biggest obstacle will be people sueing over not getting the same opportunity 

The same as who? To me it looked like you were saying as to people from previous years.

[Formally140]

14 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

The same as who? To me it looked like you were saying as to people from previous years.

Yes. If you don’t think there will be people trying to do everything in their power to use the legal system or the threat of lawsuits to get around this rule if it’s implemented.. you haven’t spent much time around education or parents these days.

 

I think people aren’t getting the point. I’m saying IF this rule is implemented. Or to even get the rule implemented. Parents/athletes appealing will be one of the biggest obstacles. Especially given how they’ll be able to point out how “other kids got the same opportunity, why can’t Johnny”

 

maybe I’m cynical but I’m looking at the obstacles that need to be overcome. I don’t hate the rule. 

[Formally140]

40 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Mission accomplished.

Have you ever actually accomplished anything or convinced anyone to do anything acting that way. Because while I know it probably makes you feel superior. I have a feeling it hasn’t ever accomplished anything 

[Mike Parrish]

2 minutes ago, Formally140 said:

Have you ever actually accomplished anything or convinced anyone to do anything acting that way. Because while I know it probably makes you feel superior. I have a feeling it hasn’t ever accomplished anything 

Don't start none, won't be none.

 

[Formally140]

Just now, Mike Parrish said:

Don't start none, won't be none.

 

I’ll take that as a no

[Mike Parrish]

Just now, Formally140 said:

I’ll take that as a no

Take what you please from this.
Do go back and read the thread and decide who was being snicky first...