Jim Grobe at Wake Forest used this strategy for years, and rode it to a fair amount of success for Wake Forest. But they gave up on it after a couple losing seasons, and never got back to the level they had been on competitively and Grobe was fired.
I'm not aware of anyone else who has taken this approach. I don't think there is much doubt that it can pay some dividends, but...this is an approach you take when you are basically going to concede that you are unable to recruit P5 caliber players. The ability to play right away is extremely meaningful to kids, and most of the elite recruiting programs play plenty of freshmen. There are always some kids who take scholarships knowing they are going to redshirt, but that usually is in exchange for a scholarship offer that is above where you can go and play right away. So a kid might sign with FSU or Ohio State or Alabama knowing they are going to redshirt, but normally because otherwise they'd be at Illinois or Mississippi State.
For Syracuse to institute this across the board, like Wake did, you are basically signing kids that would otherwise play for Buffalo, Northern Iowa, UMass, etc. You can not battle Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, BC, etc with this approach...no chance. You will not be fishing from the same pond as even those second- or third-rate P5 programs.
Now, if you want to make the argument that Syracuse can't compete for those kids anyway, then this would be a viable approach to occasional 6-8 win seasons, but that would be the ceiling, because you simply wouldn't sign the type of size, talent, etc that is required to put up big seasons.
I don't know what the answer is, but my gut feeling is that the better answer is bringing in a crazy spread offense. You've got defensive minded programs at BC and Pitt, Penn St is a bit of a mess offensively, who knows what you're going to have at Rutgers or Maryland. While UNC and Clemson run some tempo, for the most part I think Syracuse would be best off bringing some Big 12 style to the ACC.
I just don't think this "hard nosed" approach works when you can't recruit the caliber of linemen and backers that your opponents can. Long term you just can't physically dominate teams with physically better and stronger players than you. It is possible however, to throw things at them that they aren't used to dealing with, the way GT does. GT has had a pretty decent bowl streak with inferior talent because of a unique offense.
The other thing is it would allow Syracuse to recruit dynamic athletes that don't fit the physical profile or dimensions that other programs are looking for...6 foot tall QBs, mobile QBs that are super accurate but maybe have second rate arm strength, 5'6" receivers with speed to burn, O-lineman that might be under 300 lbs but can play 80+ snaps, etc. You just have to accept you're going to give up a lot of points, but if you fill your defense with playmakers that can hopefully take a fumble to the house or just get that one or two stops when the opposing offense is feeling the pressure to keep up.
That's not the profile of a team that wins the college football playoffs obviously. But there is space in the ACC and the Northeast I think to carve out some success. And once your program has a buzz, then the caliber of athlete you can recruit obviously improves. Banging your head against the hard-nosed, pro-style, physically wear you down offensive mindset, I just don't see a path to success.
I agree with most of this. Not all, but most.
I think we can and would do a fine job recruiting quality 3* athletes. We should be able to battle and win our fair share against the likes of BC, Maryland, Pitt, VT, UVa, etc. And then we beat these programs on the field because we resist the temptation to play kids that are not ready to truly excel the first time they step on the field.
Think about Marvin Harrison. IIRC, he red-shirted at SU because he was a Prop 48 “casualty.” Silly concept, same effect. But man, #8 was an above-grade wideout the moment he stepped on the field (in his 2nd season at SU). There was no learning curve. No freshman mistakes. Think about Todd Philcox. He had to wait 2-3 years to get on the field at SU. And it launched an NFL career.
There are so many positive examples from our past: D.McNabb, Kevin Johnson, Kevin Abrams (iirc), Justin Pugh, Duke Pettijohn.
Obviously, not every kid we redshirt is going to be an NFL draft pick. But, the odds certainly increase, don’t they? Let's communicate this to the recruit, the parent, the HS coach. THIS is why this is best for the kid, his family AND the program.
I think in this model, you appeal primarily to kids that want to take their academic seriously, that might want to get a grad degree. That might want to tackle a complex major at SU. Stanford, granted an elite institution, is winning 9, 10, or 11 games annually these days with top-tier students. Why cannot we do the same by valuing the red-shirt at SU? I know we can.
And yes, can we could do this with a Big XII-style offense? Sure. There is no reason we cannot. I am all for it.
But my primary point is that the answer to winning football games at SU goes MUCH MUCH deeper than we need to
recruit better, or
pay more for a good head coach, or
install a passing-based spread offense. For the record, all of these great ideas sound good to me. I am not against them.
I just believe that the plight of SU football necessitates that we have to ALSO be smarter/more efficitent to win on a consistent basis. We have to treat this program like a business. We have to really develop/cultivate our players, our product and our program.
Money ball mentality meets CFB at Syracuse University? And a great place to start exploiting a market inefficiency is to realize that 22-year-olds are almost universally stronger, smarter and more experienced than 18-year-olds.
