|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 6, 2016 9:09:20 GMT -5
Joe, That should be true of every position all of the time. However, saying that someone is the number one at a position (as when setting the two-deep chart) is not the same as a "raw deal."
|
|
|
Post by joe on Nov 6, 2016 9:26:15 GMT -5
Joe, That should be true of every position all of the time. However, saying that someone is the number one at a position (as when setting the two-deep chart) is not the same as a "raw deal." Sorry rgs can you elaborate? In terms of a "raw deal" there hasn't been one, yet, and I hope there isn't one at all. Honestly if not for the questionable personnel choices over the last few months this would not even be on my radar. And because of the fact that we may be entering a coaching transition period where transfer activity seems to be increased in general, I believe my concern here is valid. I've also lived through this before and seen it play out in and it's not pretty. Casual fans will never know what goes on behind the scenes and the resentment that builds can be cancerous for a team in transition. You can choose to accept this or dismiss but it's simply what happens. And to think a new coach may not have his eye on year 2, 3, or 4 when making depth chart choices is delusional.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 6, 2016 10:01:10 GMT -5
I can elaborate - telling a player to "red shirt" and return to a school and then not starting him off as number one at his position would be, IMO, a "raw deal" of the first order. A coach who ignores the current players and fans and the coming season because he is concerned about a season somewhere in the future (year 2, 3 or 4) may simply never get to that point. It is not an either now or later (either/or) situation. One hs do make the best effort in season one while looking ahead. As a former coach and athletic director, I know what things can be like behind the scenes. If current players believe they are being cast aside after several years of dedication and hard work it can be cancerous not only to the current team, but to those players who see how the veterans were treated. Any coach needs to be both fair and consistent. There are coaches who, after giving a player an opportunity, say perform or you will be out of there. As long as there has been the initial opportunity, that is fair. If it is true for everyone, that is consistent. If players feel their younger teammates are put ahead because they will "be around longer" that, to me seems unfair. Better explanation?
Can you please elaborate on the "questionable personnel choices"?
|
|
|
Post by joe on Nov 6, 2016 11:04:39 GMT -5
Rgs I think we are both advocating fairness, just in different ways. Let me ask you - and not in a negative or condescending way - were you a coach and AD of scholarship athletes or at the high school level? I only ask because the experience is probably similar in many respects but in other ways worlds apart. Let me tell you that when a D1 athlete puts the time and work in, gets a shot, and then delivers, he or she expects to have that position until being beaten out fairly, getting injured, or performing poorly. I have the luxury of distance from the situation so I can tell it like it really is. I'm sure any HC player would be classy enough to just keep their head down and be quiet and probably keep their feeling to their closest core group.
In terms of questionable personnel choices, just look at the position in question - quarterback. It turns out that Wade probably should have been Pujals' backup from the onset. The effect this had on the season was not minor.
Moving forward I'd be heartened to see Wade enter Spring camp as the number 1 and split reps with Pujals and let the better man win. I think this gesture by CTG or any new coach would live up to anyone's notion of fairness.
|
|
|
Post by Bleed Purple on Nov 6, 2016 11:14:59 GMT -5
Agree with hc87 that I too felt that 2016 was Gilmore's "double secret probation" year (Dean Wormer, did I get that terminology correct?). My judgment was he needed a winning season to insure he would continue. Based on the results, I am expecting a change.
Agree also with hoops that wins are of utmost importance. Show me a coach who is constantly in rebuilding mode at the expense of current wins and I will show you a soon to be former coach. The only time this general rule may not apply is in year 1 after a coaching change.....but that is likely what pp is facing. The person with whom he negotiated his red shirt deal may not be around next fall.
My point is that pp needed to include the additional element of a likely coaching change in his equation when evaluating red shirting for next year. I suspect he considered his love of the game, his team, alma mater, his career, his health, competition from a presumably returning Brown, an emergent Wade........and then possibly a new coaching staff, new offensive schemes, etc.
That said, pp is an excellent athlete who had clearly demonstrated himself as our number 1 QB and team leader. It is very likely that a new coaching staff will come to the same conclusions as Gilmore. I for one hope pp does return next year and that we win more next year than we did this year. Worse things have happened than to be 3 deep at QB next year. Go Cross go!
One final thought....is it possible that red shirting pp may be a "tell" that perhaps Gilmore thinks/knows he's back next year?
|
|
|
Post by joe on Nov 6, 2016 11:22:29 GMT -5
I'm sure having PP agree to return only helps CTG's chances of being retained, especially if Peter expressed a desire to ADNP to return to "play for Coach Gilmore" for another season, as this would demonstrate a degree of loyalty that would be absent if the team were slipping away. Such loyalty was not the case during the ends other coaching tenures, like the years prior to Dan Allen's arrival, for example.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Nov 6, 2016 11:29:26 GMT -5
Pujals would start at a majority of FBS schools. He is the starter next year. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by cmo on Nov 6, 2016 15:57:34 GMT -5
Rgs I think we are both advocating fairness, just in different ways. Let me ask you - and not in a negative or condescending way - were you a coach and AD of scholarship athletes or at the high school level? I only ask because the experience is probably similar in many respects but in other ways worlds apart. Let me tell you that when a D1 athlete puts the time and work in, gets a shot, and then delivers, he or she expects to have that position until being beaten out fairly, getting injured, or performing poorly. I have the luxury of distance from the situation so I can tell it like it really is. I'm sure any HC player would be classy enough to just keep their head down and be quiet and probably keep their feeling to their closest core group. In terms of questionable personnel choices, just look at the position in question - quarterback. It turns out that Wade probably should have been Pujals' backup from the onset. The effect this had on the season was not minor. Moving forward I'd be heartened to see Wade enter Spring camp as the number 1 and split reps with Pujals and let the better man win. I think this gesture by CTG or any new coach would live up to anyone's notion of fairness. PP, if he were to redshirt, won't participate in Spring practice.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Nov 6, 2016 16:00:14 GMT -5
Coaches often say that a player should not lose his job because of an injury. By that reasoning Pujals would be number 1 in the fall and given a chance to perform. Failure to perform brings in the backup.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Nov 6, 2016 16:29:54 GMT -5
Coaches often say that a player should not lose his job because of an injury. By that reasoning Pujals would be number 1 in the fall and given a chance to perform. Failure to perform brings in the backup. They often say that but . . . Also things are probably a little different in the context of an sudden, unplanned 5th year. This is part of the reason why medical redshirts are a slippery slope. I see no reason not to allow non-medical redshirting. At least you can plan and recruit around them, at least to a degree.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 6, 2016 19:13:45 GMT -5
Rgs I think we are both advocating fairness, just in different ways. Let me ask you - and not in a negative or condescending way - were you a coach and AD of scholarship athletes or at the high school level? I only ask because the experience is probably similar in many respects but in other ways worlds apart. Let me tell you that when a D1 athlete puts the time and work in, gets a shot, and then delivers, he or she expects to have that position until being beaten out fairly, getting injured, or performing poorly. I have the luxury of distance from the situation so I can tell it like it really is. I'm sure any HC player would be classy enough to just keep their head down and be quiet and probably keep their feeling to their closest core group. In terms of questionable personnel choices, just look at the position in question - quarterback. It turns out that Wade probably should have been Pujals' backup from the onset. The effect this had on the season was not minor. Moving forward I'd be heartened to see Wade enter Spring camp as the number 1 and split reps with Pujals and let the better man win. I think this gesture by CTG or any new coach would live up to anyone's notion of fairness. At the high school level. Can you explain the "worlds" of difference?
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Nov 6, 2016 20:07:53 GMT -5
1. Did Wade accomplish anything that Pujals would not have accomplished? PP if sound is still a better player IMHO. No knock on Wade by any means, he exceeded expectations. 2. Someone alluded to players perhaps not sticking by Dan Allen. Maybe they came to the conclusion that most people did that Allen had no business coaching college football anymore due to his health. He had to be removed, sad as it was. He didn't even live to see the 2004 season, as a matter of fact. Program was in as bad a shape as it's ever been.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Nov 6, 2016 20:28:49 GMT -5
rgs c'mon do I really have to spend time contrasting and comparing high school and D1 college football? Maybe someone else would like to expound succinctly but it would take me about 9 pages.
Tim go back and read my post again. I was referencing team morale prior to Dan Allen's arrival, certainly not during the tragic and confusing years that marked the end of his time with us.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Nov 6, 2016 23:26:46 GMT -5
I don't think ADNP is the kind of guy who would have any single fball player dictate to him who his coach will be. Was it PP alone who announced his redshirt--without any other announcement from anybody else. Whole thing smells fishy.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 7, 2016 5:05:32 GMT -5
Maybe my memory is going but I do not recall ever reading anything official about any other player who medically redshirted at Holy Cross.
It may have to do with HIPPA privacy rules but, for example, did anyone ever see an announcement about this year's 5th year seniors coming back? They just did. Nothing fishy going on at all. If the individual chooses to say something publicly, that is their right.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Nov 7, 2016 5:35:31 GMT -5
Except PP is kind of a special case due to his prominence.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Nov 7, 2016 7:03:53 GMT -5
I don't think ADNP is the kind of guy who would have any single fball player dictate to him who his coach will be. Was it PP alone who announced his redshirt--without any other announcement from anybody else. Whole thing smells fishy. 'Sota I agree but it certainly can't hurt CTG chances of being retained if players support him. I cannot say if they are or not. I compare this to when Dom came back. Just feels different in the scholarship era. Back then you are talking about a wunderkind player on a nonscholarship team.. Now we have several extremely talented scholarship QBs on the roster, all studs in their own way. Just saying you gotta be careful with this stuff as a coach, and the message you send. Put it this way - how would you feel if your were Wade and you were a junior this year? Hey guess what? Thanks for the memories but you don't get to start your senior year. And what's more? You play in a league where you can't come back for a fifth year. Maybe you ought to jump out your dorm room window and break a leg and come back and have 11 more football games to compete in. The whole thing doesn't sit well. It's just stupid. An attempt by the PL to keep the game pure sort of corrupts it on some level. Allow non medical redshirting now! Join the damn real world.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 7, 2016 7:29:59 GMT -5
When I look at the rosters of some of our ooc opponents and see player after player listed as a redshirt, I realize that HC Players will have older (and stronger?) opponents all across the board. There may be some reason why only medical redshirts are allowed by the PL, but I am not sure what (if any) the real benefit is. If all of our opponents followed this rule I would have no problem with it, but in this case, we see to be trying to play with one hand tied behind our collective backs. It reminds me f how for many years HC had no spring practice because Harvard did not like it.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 7, 2016 7:31:09 GMT -5
rgs c'mon do I really have to spend time contrasting and comparing high school and D1 college football? Maybe someone else would like to expound succinctly but it would take me about 9 pages. Tim go back and read my post again. I was referencing team morale prior to Dan Allen's arrival, certainly not during the tragic and confusing years that marked the end of his time with us. When I make unsupported references to try to make a point it takes me more (uncited) references than a mere 9 pages.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Nov 7, 2016 8:57:21 GMT -5
When I look at the rosters of some of our ooc opponents and see player after player listed as a redshirt, I realize that HC Players will have older (and stronger?) opponents all across the board. There may be some reason why only medical redshirts are allowed by the PL, but I am not sure what (if any) the real benefit is. If all of our opponents followed his rule I would have no problem with it, but in this case, we see to be trying to play with one hand tied behind our collective backs. It reminds me f how for many years HC had no spring practice because Harvard did not like it. Much different philosophy in the PL compared to the rest of the FCS landscape. At HC and other PL schools, the academic curriculum is to have students graduate in four years -- PL schools excel in this regard across the board as all schools are 75% + in graduating students in four years (HC hovers around 90%). Given that there really aren't any graduate school programs (think Colgate, Bucknell, and Lehigh may have some), students shouldn't need more than four years to graduate -- I think the only reason this would be the case at HC is for the 3-2 engineering program with Columbia. If HC, and other PL schools, were to redshirt freshmen, then they would either have to pick up a minor or double major to justify spending an extra year. I'm sure Guild, Pujals, and any other fifth year guys will not be at HC for the spring semester, and could graduate after the fall semester in 2017 -- thereby keeping them on the four year path. While this handcuffs the PL schools a bit, it's not something I disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Nov 7, 2016 9:40:08 GMT -5
rgs I'm saving it for the memoirs.
I don't think it needs to be either/or. You can have non-medical redshirting at HC and simply have the kid take a Spring semester off. Maybe they take their freshman spring semester off to regroup and work out on their own. In the kids that may play early and are thus not redshirted you could still invoke a medical hardship waiver if needed.
I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Nov 7, 2016 9:57:36 GMT -5
I have been off the board for the weekend, but here is my take. PP, objectively, is the best QB on the roster BY FAR. It is not even close. This is college football and you play the best player. Presumably he will be the best QB next year. If he legitimately gets beat out, whoever beats him out should play. I don't see that happening with the current group of QB's. His coming back helps the program in several ways and gives him his only chance at getting a roster invite. Any one who thinks that the program is better off playing a QB in 2017 just because they will be there in 2018 is clueless.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Nov 7, 2016 10:12:15 GMT -5
I have been off the board for the weekend, but here is my take. PP, objectively, is the best QB on the roster BY FAR. It is not even close. This is college football and you play the best player. Presumably he will be the best QB next year. If he legitimately gets beat out, whoever beats him out should play. I don't see that happening with the current group of QB's. His coming back helps the program in several ways and gives him his only chance at getting a roster invite. Any one who thinks that the program is better off playing a QB in 2017 just because they will be there in 2018 is clueless. No one is suggesting (at least not me) that we should be playing someone simply to prepare for the future. What I would like is for their to be a fair competition. It's simply not as black and white as you state. I agree that CTG is looking no further than a successful '16-17 season but if you think a good coach taking over a program in distress is not eyeing the future, at least to some degree, well I would not use the world "clueless" like you did, but you can feel free to extrapolate. In comparing the quarterbacks you need to account for experience. Wade is at least equal to where Pujals was at his current level of experience. Pujals thrived off of the scramble for most of his first few games, you might say a large portion of his freshman season. Wade seems to have assimilated to the passing game more quickly at this stage, going through his reads at an above average speed and making very few mental mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 7, 2016 10:33:42 GMT -5
SOV is totally right and this has no chance of ever changing at HC or the PL. Our student athletes are just that, both athletes but students first and a non-medical redshirt flips the emphasis to athlete over student.
We are competing primarily with other similarly situated schools. The playing field is level.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Nov 7, 2016 10:37:02 GMT -5
SOV is totally right and this has no chance of ever changing at HC or the PL. Our student athletes are just that, both athletes but students first and a non-medical redshirt flips the emphasis to athlete over student. We are competing primarily with other similarly situated schools. The playing field is level. See I get this in theory. However when you drop a fifth year on a rising underclassman and bump him out of earned playing time it doesn't really feel like academics first to me. Feels like a loophole that is really all about athletics. Not to mention unless you are a double major you are not adding any more academics in most cases, owing to HCs lack of a graduate school.
|
|