Pet Peeve Note: Red-Shirt This.

This drives me mad. MAD.

From a fairly inane article comparing Locker and Clausen (which, in overall theme/content, I am fine with), the author said this:

“Both were thrown into starting roles as freshman (Locker as a red-shirt, Clausen as a true).”

Here’s the thing though, they were not both starting as freshmen.

JIMMY started as a FRESHMEN. JAKE started as a SOPHOMORE.

College Football World: CAN WE PLEASE DROP THIS COMPLETELY STUPID USE OF “RED-SHIRT” [INSERT YEAR]? If you red-shirt your first year and finish your first year of school, and then you’re playing your second year you’re a freaking SOPHOMORE. Sure, you still have 4 years of eligibility, but why do we insist on calling these guys freshmen (again)? They take sophomore classes (well, at schools where they actually TAKE classes), they’re in their second (sophomore) year of school, blah blah blah. They’re sophomores.

The term red-shirt doesn’t mean anything other than the fact that the player retains a year of eligibility. But too often, commentators, bloggers, media, whatever, categorize Red-Shirt guys as actually being in that year. And it tends to skew things. A lot. And the terminology is used for absolutely no reason.

Red-shirt Juniors are not Juniors. They’re freaking Seniors. And all too often, they drop the ‘red-shirt’ part and just call the players Juniors. Well, they’ve been in school for four years. That’s four years of coaching. That’s four years of school, four years of collegiate weight training, film study, etc. If it’s their 4th year, then they are SENIORS.

Is this really that big of a deal? Nope. Hence, the title of the post. It’s not a big deal, but it’s annoying.

So I think it’s worth calling out – because too often that 1 year is ignored. When ND starts a freshmen, that player is a first year player, months removed from high school. When other programs start a ‘freshmen’, usually the kid is a solid year and a half (if you include the summer before his true frosh year) in the program, with a season under his belt on the practice squad, a year of weight-lifting, and a year of maturation. That one year doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal, but compared to a TRUE freshmen, there can be big, big differences. And then roll that up across an entire program? BIG differences.

I’m not sure why the mixing up of terminology has occurred. I’m not sure why it bothers me so much either. But I just know that when pundits talk about a USC Senior, they’re most often talking about a USC 5th year. And ND has been super thin on ACTUAL seniors and juniors since 2006, not red-shirt guys. After this year, it looks like we’ll finally have a full complement of players from 5th years on down. It’s about time, and maybe then it won’t bother me so much.

But til then, can’t a freshmen be a freshmen, and a sophomore a sophomore? Go ahead and say he has an extra year of eligibility, but why do we have to pretend like they’re a year younger than they actually are?

Maddening.