What assumptions have I made? I know you donât actually agree with me; thatâs a joke.
I asked you why zero PT is necessary for skill development / weightroom work, and you said that not everyone can play. Which I took to mean that you might not have a good answer to the question. Which is fine! I donât either. Iâve asked that question a lot, and Iâve never heard a good answer.
(To be honest, one of the reasons I ask is I have absolutely no clue about weightroom stuff, but I know some UVa fans do, and I think that maybe if I keep asking it, someone might provide some insight, but I havenât seen it yet.)
No I think ânot everyone can playâ is a good answer for a redshirt. The assumption being " Which I took to mean that you might not have a good answer to the question."
This is a plausible theory, but it would mean that RS idea is coming from the player side, and while I agree that itâs a playerâs decision, I donât think the idea is coming from the player himself. Tony even apparently told Blue Ribbon that he raises it during recruitment.
One related consideration to all of this is whether playing time â from the playerâs perspective â is endogenous or exogenous:
For example, if Tony has decided you will not play this year no matter what (exogenous) then you â the player â may indeed want to redshirt because it is the optimal strategy given these constraints. In other words, if you know playing time is nil then you want another year of possible playing time.
However, if playing time is endogenous and you can earn playing time throughout the year, it probably does not make sense to redshirt. For example, if Ryan Dunn is coming off of a broken/sprained ankle, he might earn no time for the first few games, but then ease into it as he is comfortable using his full athleticism.
But I personally have no idea how tony decides playing time/runs practice. For example, if you are told you are on the green team, is that it for the year? Can guys get promoted from green to whatever other color teams we have? Are there opportunities to show true improvement?
The list of redshirts that have benefited both parties is long and distinguished. The plaque for guys that redshirted to the detriment of either party is in the ladiesâ room (no offense Dre, Haney put your plaque there, and it seems like it turned out alright for you).
I mean everyone can play, in actuality. We have 13 schollies, not 50.
I understand that the ideal steady/stable rotation is college hoops is somewhere between 6 and 9, so I understand that 13 guys wonât be part of the normal rotation.
Also, as the previous year taught us, you donât have to fill up your schollies.
I think the better option is to use early season games, esp. cupcakes to let this all play out. Give all scholly guys some token minutes. In various situations. Then if they stink, donât play them.
As Iâve said previously, unless the goal is the 5th year, I donât see why 0 minutes is a better outcome than, like, I donât know, 50-100 or so.
Because a kid who redshirts is probably not going to give us 50-100 minutes
Very few if any teams play a rotation of 13 players
They workout throughout the summer and practice for a whole month before the first game along with scrimmages and overseas trip. I think they get at least a good idea of all that before hand.
I think a redshirt in Tonyâs eyes means you are not ready and you wonât help the team this year if not redshirted. If you are good enough you will play. Joe, Malcolm, Kihei, LP, Guy, Jerome, Murphy.
Without confusing myself with endogeneity/exogeneity (which I would), this encapsulates one thing I really donât like about it. If a player improves, the calculus on PT should change! But if youâve committed to a course of action, it looks like youâre âburning a redshirtâ if you change your mind. But if you take the RS option off the table, youâre just doing something normal/natural: playing a guy because he got better.
Like I said, I agree that if a kid takes a redshirt he doesnât want because the coach pressured him, thatâs bad. But if the kid wants to redshirt, then it doesnât matter whether the coach brings it up first.
I do wish the rule werenât so strict. Something like â<=5 games and <=40 minutesâ would make more sense. (Football has loosened up, right?) Thereâs really no reason for the NCAA to insist the kid never sees the court for even a second. But if Iâm the player and itâs going to be a throwaway year for me one way or the other, Iâd want to meet the requirements (whatever they are) to keep that year of eligibility.
Yes that is what I think too. The question is â and this is playing Tony psychologist â does Tony view it that way? I do not have enough info on how these things work in his brain and in practice to really understand it.
I saw that earlier. I am skeptical that theyâre able to pull out the hoops-specific figures tbh. UVaâs accounting on this is murky. I suspect there are two issues: (1) hard for the layman to figure out the numbers, and (2) I think ADs can play with the numbers a bit. E.g., if thereâs a private jet â are they allocating usage to football, menâs hoops, etc.? Or does it just go under the general AD budget.
On the budget stuff, Iâve heard people say before that the basketball program at UVA doesnât make a profit. Is that true? Does anyone know where the claim comes from? Iâve always been skeptical of that. During 2015-19 we had amazing home attendance, won a natty, and somehow didnât make a profit??
You can look at the budgets; theyâre all public. But theyâre really hard to figure out. The line items donât make sense to the layman. At least this one. Just as an example, I think merch gets tied to the AD budget generally, and not to a team specifically.