One of the hot topics during the SEC’s 2017 spring media teleconference was the proposed redshirt rule. If you are unfamiliar with the potential amendment to the current redshirt rule, basically the new rule would allow players to play in up to four games, which includes any potential bowl games, and not lose a year of eligibility.

According to the SEC coaches, allowing players to get on the field for a few games and return the next season without having used up a year of eligibility could help several areas of the games. The possibility of playing true freshmen would be an interesting wrinkle to the college game and judging by the overwhelming support for the new rule by the SEC’s coaches, the rule would pass if it were up to them. Several of the coaches argued the rule would be good for player health and safety, as well as development for younger players.

The only coaches not asked about the rule during the call were Kirby Smart and Kevin Sumlin.

Here’s what the rest of the SEC coaches had to say regarding the proposed redshirt rule:

Dan Mullen:

“I’m definitely in favor of that. You look at some of the restrictions with academic redshirts, injuries, number of scholarships, length of season, we’re looking at health and safety of players. There might be a guy you might like to play, but he’s not developed, he’s not quite ready. Whether it’s safety reasons or for whatever reason in your program, but as the season goes on at the end of his freshman season, you say ‘hey, this guy could be ready, he’s taking reps off of another guy, you should be able to do that.’ The other tragedy is a guy that maybe starts playing midway through the season thinking maybe he might not play, midway through the season, he plays two games, then he gets hurt. That counts as a whole year, even though he played less than the four games that would be allowed at the beginning of the year. I think it could be very advantageous to the players and the game and to the development of these young men as they move forward both as players on the field and health and safety.”

Ed Orgeron:

“Love it. That would be great. You can figure those guys out in those first four games and it adds to your roster, adds to your development of your team, adds to your rotation. This is basketball on grass nowadays. You have some offenses out there trying to run 100 plays. The game has doubled since when we played. So I think the more guys that can play without burning a year, would be great.”

Jim McElwain: 

On if he favored the rule: “Yeah. These rules, no one ever asks me anyways, so it really doesn’t matter, we’ll just do what they tell us. Yet, I think that rule, why not just let them play and give them five years of eligibility and call it the way it is? As you get later in the season, you’ve got those guys you’d like to get in there and played in whatever the 20 percent of the first — I’m not real good at math anyway, trying to figure out when to use them and when not to use them. I do think that’s a good rule.”

Derek Mason:

“I think the old rule was an antiquated rule. If this rule comes into effect, what we’re looking at is the ability for you to bolster your roster a little bit. If they’re acclimated and they can play, then you let them play. Now, when that is, that’s really on you. Here’s what I know, last year, when you look at (Leonard) Fournette, you look at (Christian) McCaffrey, those guys not playing in bowl games, those guys effect teams. Is that going to be a future trend? I don’t know. But as we move forward, coaches have to prepare for guys who may be draft-worthy to possibly not play in postseason games. What does that do to you in terms of your numbers or players who are readily available to you? So for me, I look at it like it’s a good rule. Whether you play them early or whether you play them late, it doesn’t matter. I think giving them a chance to adjust to the speed of the game, and getting their feet wet, it’s something that’s important.”

Nick Saban: 

“I think I absolutely would be in favor of that. I think one of the most difficult things that for a player themselves is when they can’t play at all when they’re freshmen to be able to gain a redshirt year here. They all want to play. This would give them an opportunity to play some, it would actually enhance their development to some degree. I think with the numbers that we have right now and the number of games that we are playing, you might be able to play a few more players in some of those games. That would help some of the other players on your team as well. I think the No. 1 thing it would tremendously help the development of some younger players on your team to be able to look forward to being able to play in some games, but not lose the year. You eliminate some of these things where a guy plays in five plays in a game and you’ve got to try to appeal to get his year back because you made a mistake and put him in the game, or you thought he was going to play more and he didn’t. It really probably would be a good thing.”

Butch Jones:

“I would definitely be in favor of that. Everything with these young players, it’s all about growth and development, but also gaining experience. As we know, they’re like raising your own children. They grow up, they grow and develop at different rates of speed. For us, we’ve had the great challenge of building this program up of creating depth. When you say out of our 22 starters when we started preseason camp, we only had five that started every single game. So I think being able to put a young man in those early games and see how they react to it, I think they can develop confidence and as we all know football is developmental game. It’s all about growth and development and confidence has a big part in that.”

Bret Bielema: 

“On the front end, you may have a kid you think is ready to play, but maybe after a couple of games, you realize it’s too big. This way, you wouldn’t have to make that decision at the beginning of the year. A guy might end up being needed strictly because of scholarship numbers, roster count. There were several examples of that in our league last year, where guys were needed based on numbers. I think it would really help all of us.”

Barry Odom: 

“I think there’s opportunity just knowing the roster, you’ve got depth issues at a number of spots, especially when you get down to the end of the season. That’s something that just looking at how it would have affected us last year, it could have helped us in a couple of spots. But also we played 10 true freshmen, so maybe it would have been a wash last year. Moving forward, when you get the depth set a little more like it needs to be, it could be a luxury, not only for your program, but also for the development of kids, the development of a true freshman that comes in and it gets to the point where you think he’s ready to go play at whatever point it is the season, you’ve got the decision to make, is it worth it for the kid, playing him with three or four games left or should he redshirt? There’s some merit to that, and we’ll continue to evaluate it.”

Hugh Freeze: 

“I love the new proposal that’s out there. I think it’s needed with everything that’s going on in college athletics. The season is getting longer, and the more physical play that these kids are in year-round, the toll that’s on their bodies. I just think it’s a great option if you can play freshmen or a kid who is going through a redshirt year in four games or less, I think it’s a very positive and needed change that we need to make. That would have affected (Shea Patterson’s) decision, would have made it an easy decision to make at that point (last season). I’m a huge proponent of that. I think it’s also going to be beneficial in bowl games, when you can throw a kid in there and know they get the experience, so I ‘m excited about that.”

Mark Stoops: 

“I think that rule change would make a lot of sense. We were in that situation last year, when we had a quarterback hurt early in the year in in Drew Barker. We played most of the year with our backup quarterback being a redshirt guy. We decided to keep that redshirt on Gunnar Hoak in Game 11, and played our third-team quarterback, who did some good things. But it was a situation that could have benefited us last year; it makes a lot of sense. It can protect the player with a redshirt year, and help gain a little bit of experience for the following year. Overall, I think it’s a pretty good rule.”

Will Muschamp:

On if the new rule is something he would be in favor of: “Absolutely. I think that would be a great rule.

When asked why that rule would be so beneficial?: “When an injury happens or you’re thin at a position, a young man may not be totally ready, you may not know until he plays on game day. A lot of times you may think a guy’s ready to go and then he gets to game day and he doesn’t play very well for reasons that have nothing to do with his ability. So I think you’re able to see some of those things from an experience standpoint, I think it just helps overall.”

Gus Malzahn: 

“I do think that’s a good thing, from a standpoint of what’s fair to the player. As a coach sometimes you’ve got to make quick decisions in fall camp. I think this will give everyone a little more information and not hurt the player as much. I think it’s a good thing for coaches and for players.”