Not being American, I thought redshirting meant the wearer was doomed to die a nasty death as part of an away team, as per Star Trek.
However, I've read several American sports-related stories recently which mentions redshirting in a deprecating way. Can someone explain that particular meaning for the non-Americans here?
TIA,
AJ
In one of Cold Creeks D-MAN stories I believe Michael had to red-shirt after an injury and it meant "no contact" while he was practicing...Obviously he wouldn't be able to play in an actual game with a red-shirt
EDITED AFTER Google search - Looks like I was wrong...
"In short, to redshirt means to sit out for a year. A redshirt season or redshirt year is when a college athlete elects to not compete in games against other teams. Although they cannot participate in outside competition during this time, the student-athlete can still practice with the team"
EDITED AFTER Google search - Looks like I was wrong...
"In short, to redshirt means to sit out for a year. A redshirt season or redshirt year is when a college athlete elects to not compete in games against other teams. Although they cannot participate in outside competition during this time, the student-athlete can still practice with the team"
Players are redshirted to preserve a year of eligibility. It's most common in football giving players another year after high school the time to grow and gain strength to compete at a college level.
You can also be redshirted for medical reasons if injured and have not appeared in X-number of games.
It's most common in football giving players another year after high school the time to grow and gain strength to compete at a college level.
That seems bizarre to me. With such short sporting careers, taking a year off without playing competitively sounds tantamount to career suicide.
AJ
No, it's just the opposite. They play for the same number of years but are better prepared to face the level of competition at the college level. They still practice with the team, do weight training and conditioning the same as the rest of the team, It just gives them a chance to get bigger and stonger.
Players can, but are very unlikely to get drafted after 3 years of college ball. Almost all players who make it to the NFL have played 4 years in college. Except for the very few players who are able to go pro early most will play out their full eligibity. That, depending on injury, is 4 years (plus one for the COVID year.) With the redshirt year they have 4 years in college. Due to medical redshirts that can stretch out to 4, 5 or 6 years.
There are about 81,000 college football players at all levels. About .41 per cent ever see a day in the NFL or CFL. There are about 1.5 million high school players. A little less than 8 per cent ever play in college.
No, it's just the opposite.
In all the sports I've played, taking a year off from competition would leave a player at a serious disadvantage to their peers.
I guess it's an American thing.
AJ
I'll bet that is not true and you'll find the same thing happens everywhere. Players are held back when they have promise but can't yet compete at a higher level.
As to lack of competition, they are competing everyday in practices, that are harder work than the games, against players that are better than them.
I'll bet that is not true and you'll find the same thing happens everywhere. Players are held back when they have promise but can't yet compete at a higher level.
In all the team sports I'm aware of, players who are not ready to compete at the top level instead compete at a lower level until they're ready - for example in a reserve team or an age group team. They don't miss a year's competitive experience at their most formative age.
AJ
College isn't exactly "their most formative stage." Athletes that play in college, at almost any level, have devoted probably a decade or more to their sport. Baseball starts at pre-school with "T-Ball," and it's tough to catch up if you're not playing by 7 or so. Even before they reach their teen years, top players will bed on "travel teams" that compete with top competition on a regional basis, often spending almost every weekend during season out of town. It's rough on families and very expensive. And that's not counting private lessons. But, those are "the formative years." Master the sport then, or don't play.
Holding them at lower level is no different than a redshirt, except that they don't get to improve their skills by playing against player at a higher level. Redshirt do.
As Joemack said, the small number of players who can play college sports have been playing at a high level since very young. For every sport except football and lacrosse, they play year round. Elite players in basketball, baseball and probably other sports, play on teams with national schedules
Redshirt years give them time to perfect their skills and gain strength.
It also gives them time to learn and understand the the strategy of the game.
One thing people who don't understand the game don't realize is that football at a high level is an extremely complicated game - more like chess than checkers. A team may only have only a handful of basic plays, but there can be a dozen of variations on each. Same for defensive schemes. That takes time to learn.
Holding them at lower level is no different than a redshirt, except that they don't get to improve their skills by playing against player at a higher level. Redshirt do.
But they're not playing. They may be practising skills but they're not match fit.
Redshirt years give them time to perfect their skills and gain strength.
A top sportsperson has perhaps 20 years at the top if they're very lucky. Or 19 if they redshirt.
One thing people who don't understand the game don't realize is that football at a high level is an extremely complicated game
That's something I've noticed about American versions of sports - they love to introduce shedloads of complexity. It's evident if you compare baseball to rounders, or American football to rugby. Unfortunately the disease is now attacking cricket, with all sorts of wheezes to try to make a sedate, slow-moving game seem more exciting.
AJ
Holding them at lower level is no different than a redshirt, except that they don't get to improve their skills by playing against player at a higher level. Redshirt do.
But they're not playing. They may be practising skills but they're not match fit.
They are better than "match fit" in football. They sure aren't going to be "match fit" if you are thrown into a game before you are physically ready. Please remember that these are undeveloped 18 and 19 year olds you propose to toss in against 23 or 24 year olds who have had 3 or 4 years of intensive training.
A top sportsperson has perhaps 20 years at the top if they're very lucky. Or 19 if they redshirt.
Given that the average NFL career is about 3.3 years, I don't think that's a concern. The only people who have long careers are kickers and quarterbacks.
They are better than "match fit" in football.
I suspect that means something different in the US to what it means in British English. It doesn't mean a state of being physically fit but having enough competitive games under your belt to be in sync with the rest of your team.
Bayern Munich and England centre forward Harry Kane, for example, seems to need four or five competitive matches to get back to his best, match fit, after recovering from an injury.
AJ
Getting in sync is why you practice hours every day - so everyone knows where everyone is at the same time. Of course in games you have busted plays where nothing works right. As Grey Wolf said it's choreography.
If Kane needs a few games to get in sync with the other players it's because he's not working hard enough on off days.
No.
There's a good parallel with the saying that no plan survives contact with the enemy. However much you practise without enemy contact, it doesn't make you battle ready.
AJ
Sorry, that isn't how football works. It's why you have a variety of plays/defenses to adjust and often different lineups for those different schemes. And you don't seems to understand the numbers. Eighty-five scholarship player and about 50 walkons per team. Only 60-80 players are allowed to dress for the game. Probably 35-40 players in the regular rotation all of whom are better than the redshirted players at their position. How would the guys who are redshirted get a chance to play under any circumstances.
As to freshman and JV teams - they're not an option. First, Title IX would make them impossible due to numbers. Second, what recruit would be willing to play on one, loss a year of eligibility, loss the ability to improve skills and face the possibility of a career ending injury?
'Eligibility' keeps getting mentioned, but I'm not sure what it means. Certainly, losing 'eligibility' by playing one game sounds an undesirable (yet very artificial) state. In UK football, where clubs recruit promising players into their academies rather than going through a college system, any 16-17yo, given the chance to play for the club's first team, would crawl over hot coals to do it. Occasionally some of them get the chance and do well.
AJ
In the US, the athletic teams at the high school and college level are directly controlled by the school. They aren't independent clubs.
College level eligibility is controlled by rules set by the NCAA.
https://www.ncsasports.org/ncaa-eligibility-center/eligibility-requirements
Does that mean that if you win a college scholarship, you're allowed to spread the academic workload over five years but you're only allowed to play for four?
Is there no sporting career path available for those who fail the academic requirements? In the UK, boxing, particularly, is famous for producing top participants with no academic qualifications.
AJ
Is there no sporting career path available for those who fail the academic requirements?
For the major team sports? No.
In the UK, boxing, particularly, is famous for producing top participants with no academic qualifications.
Similar in the US. On the other hand, there is no college boxing to worry about eligibility for.
Is there no sporting career path available for those who fail the academic requirements?
For the major team sports? No.
The last time I looked a lot of baseball players didn't come from college teams, but went straight from high school to the low minors. This was several years ago, though, so it might have changed.
The last handful of years MLB teams have shied away from drafting anyone who's not an elite high school prospect, averaging only 4 or 5 HS picks per team out of 20 drafted. I talked to some MLB people at a conference last summer and it was confirmed to me that these days MLB teams would rather the non-elite HS players go to college to get experience against better competition, allowing the team to make better informed decisions on who to select.
Is there no sporting career path available for those who fail the academic requirements? In the UK, boxing, particularly, is famous for producing top participants with no academic qualifications.
The four major sports:
In football, no other realistic option for position players. Only punters and place kickers can go another way. Foreign (mainly Australian) players have taken some of those slots.
In basketball, technically you have to be one year out of high school to be drafted into the NBA if you're a US or Canadian player. Foreign players have different rules. The options other than college are playing on a foreign team or in the G (developmental) league for a year. If you are a top recruit, neither of these is an enticing choice: athletes at major basketball schools live a much better life. Also by going that route, if you are not drafted after a year, you have lost your college eligibility and the chance to get a degree on someone else's dime.
Baseball allows players to be drafted and sign straight out of high school but if they don't and choose college, they are not eligible to be drafted and signed until after 3 years have passed.
Hockey allows anyone between 18 and 20 to be drafted and signed. No college restriction.
Individual sports and olympic sports - it's likely you will get the best coaching and facilites in college unless you are in the top .001% of athletes, but there is no restriction.
Football and basketball don't have domestic minor leagues, but US & Canadian baseball players can be drafted & signed immediately after finishing high school, and foreign players can be signed at 16. There are extensive amateur and minor league hockey leagues that start at 16, if not earlier.
Eligibility -
Generally, players have 5 years after their first enrollment in college to play 4 years.
As far as redshirts go, football is a much different story than other sports, including soccer. I wouldn't say that strength and physical maturity isn't important in other sports , but in football they are keys. Even small (6' or so) and light (180-200lbs) players as wide receivers and defensive backs need to be able to take hits from and deliver them to players who are inches taller and dozens of pounds heavier. Even rugby isn't comparable, in large part because of the lack of padding.
Even rugby isn't comparable, in large part because of the lack of padding.
Agreed, but it's heading that way. In the news recently, a Welsh Rugby player has been recruited by a NFL team. He's a big lad, but that seems to be a growing trend in rugby today. The attractive free-flowing running and passing rugby of the past is having the life crushed out of it by man-mountain players overpowering the opposition.
AJ
One can do that more readily in games like European football where one plays several dozen or more games. In American football at the college level, that's 1/3 to 1/2 the season. At the professional level, it's 1/4.
Most teams can't allow a player that many games to get back into 'match fit'.
It's easier in American baseball, where there are both far more games and there's a vibrant minor league system (to which major-leaguers are routinely sent for rehab and recovery).
Most teams can't allow a player that many games to get back into 'match fit'.
It's not just individual players - whole teams take a few competitive games to find a rhythm. There's a disproportionate number of upsets in those first few games. I'd be very surprised if that didn't happen in American football too, despite the huge turnover of players.
AJ
That's one of the reasons why NFL teams play preseason games and most highly competitive college teams play easy opponents in the early weeks.
That's one of the reasons why NFL teams play preseason games
How serious are those games.
For comparison, most top-flight English teams have a pre-season tour abroad, often playing a mini-tournament for some sort of cup. Their teams are stuffed with reserves and youngsters as the superstars recuperate after eg their international matches. As a result, pre-season form is a poor indicator of what happens when the real season starts. (Although English Premier League clubs play a lot more games than NFL clubs, three bad results at the start can wreck any chance of top honours.)
AJ
Moderately serious? Any game that doesn't 'count' will lightly be taken somewhat less seriously, but it's the best alternative.
For the star players, they don't matter. For others, and for players trying to get noticed, they can matter a lot.
There are a lot if upsets early for two reasons.
The preseason predictions are nothing more than guesswork and the writers doing the predictions seldom have any knowledge of the lesser known teams who produce the upsets.
I'm talking about genuine upsets. Take teams with a larger number of wins than losses over the regular season and note in which weeks the losses occurred. Then take teams with a larger number of losses than wins over the regular season and note in which weeks the wins occurred. I would expect more to happen towards the start of the season. (That's a quick and dirty algorithm and far from rigorous.)
Opinions of experts are not a factor.
AJ
One exception is in American college football. With the exception of the playoffs (a fairly new thing), many teams don't take bowl games all that seriously, and it's common for players who are graduating and/or leaving (transferring, etc) to skip those games (why risk a major injury in a meaningless game?)
As a result, bowl games tend to have quite a few 'upsets', since the team that's playing may be materially different from the team that played during the regular season.
Given that the average NFL career is about 3.3 years, I don't think that's a concern. The only people who have long careers are kickers and quarterbacks.
3.3 years is the stat using the span for every player ever drafted. If you break out the top level players the number is quite a bit higher. If you make it 3 seasons, plan for 4 or 5 more. First round picks average 9 years. Play in a Pro Bowl and you're good for 11 years. If the league average was 3 years, no rookie would ever get a second contract.
I'm aware of that. The comment was in response to:
A top sportsperson has perhaps 20 years at the top if they're very lucky. Or 19 if they redshirt.
No NFL player other than a handful of kickers and a handful of quarterbacks have had a career that long. here are a number of position players who have had careers of 18 or 19 years, but it's still very rare.
Just posting this for anyone who wants to see the stats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_players_by_games_played
The longest career by number of games of anyone not a kicker or punter is Jerry Rice, Wide Receiver, 1985 - 2004, 303 games.
It is worth noting that there are players in all positions who played in the 15 - 18 year range but a lot fewer games, especially pre-2000.
The longest career by number of games of anyone not a kicker or punter is Jerry Rice, Wide Receiver, 1985 - 2004, 303 games.
You missed someone. Tom Brady QB 335 games.
Defensive Tackles apparently have the shortest careers, with the record for that position being a mere 219 games.
Sorry, you're right. I think I was typing and reading at the same time, so I saw DBActive's "handful of quarterbacks" and just powered through. Part of the problem is that I don't watch NFL and didn't have a clue what half the acronyms meant, I just like weird stats and info.
George Blanda also spent many years as a quarterback. His stepping in at age 43 to take the Raiders to the AFC championship game as both the QB and kicker was amazing.
and didn't have a clue what half the acronyms meant,
The link you posted has a key to what all the acronyms are right above the table.
Yes, that's my point. I was jumping between DBA's comment, that text box, and what I was writing and got confused.
Contrary to popular opinion, multitasking doesn't work. The working memory just drops details randomly when it gets overloaded.
Had I been more familiar with the acronyms beforehand then it likely wouldn't have been an issue since that would be long-term memory.
One thing people who don't understand the game don't realize is that football at a high level is an extremely complicated game
That's something I've noticed about American versions of sports - they love to introduce shedloads of complexity. It's evident if you compare baseball to rounders, or American football to rugby. Unfortunately the disease is now attacking cricket, with all sorts of wheezes to try to make a sedate, slow-moving game seem more exciting.
I think these are two different sorts of complexity (really, three). I'm not disagreeing with what AJ is seeing here, mind you. There are often rules put in to 'speed up' games, keep things moving, and so forth. In football in particular, there's a tension between 'keep it moving' and 'keep it safe' that's never going to be fully resolved.
Another level is to create excitement elsewhere. If you go to an American baseball game, for instance (especially minor league), there are many, many other things to do besides watch the players play baseball. There are all sorts of distractions both virtual (all sorts of things on the scoreboard, from mini-games to crowd cameras to advertisements) and physical (mini-golf, play areas for kids, climbing walls, and on and on).
But the original comment wasn't based on any of that, I don't think. I'm pretty sure that DDActive's point was about the game itself, and it's fundamental to the game, not an embellishment or added complexity.
American Football (not at all exclusively; most sports have this to one extent or another) is based around designed 'plays'. The complexity comes in with getting (for your typical offensive play) five very large guys on the line to move precisely in unison while making it as hard as possible for the other team to determine how they are going to move. As they're doing that, receivers need to go to specific spots on the field and/or block defenders, the quarterback needs to move in a certain way to be in the right place to be protected, one or two runners might need to move in specific ways, and so forth.
The whole thing is very much like a complicated choreographic routine in a show. Footwork, body position, hand position, even the nuances of how one holds their head and where there eyes are focused matters. The other team is doing everything possible to figure out how someone is going to move before they do it, after all.
That points to the next layer: once you have that 'dance routine' down, you need more. If you just have one or two, the other team knows what you're doing. So, from the same exact initial position, there need to be several very different things the team can do (still all in unison).
And you need a quick way of telling everyone which one you're using, and that has to be something the other team can't overhear, decode, and use against you.
That's inherent to the game. It's not 'introduced', it's just part of putting 11 highly trained, highly compensated people on a field, opposed by 11 other highly trained, highly compensated people, and having them execute at the highest possible level. If you're not making it extremely complicated, you're giving the other team a big advantage because they will know what you're likely to do and you won't have any idea what they're going to do.
The nature of American football lends itself to that. Faster, more fluid games (non-American football/soccer, hockey, basketball, etc) have plays, but very rarely does everyone (except perhaps one player) stand stock still in a particular place for five or ten seconds while the other team mostly stands still, too, while both try to figure each other out. American football, with its run a play - stop - run a play - stop format, lends itself to that sort of structure.
the disease is now attacking cricket, with all sorts of wheezes to try to make a sedate, slow-moving game seem more exciting.
I have to agree here. ODI(50 overs) and 20/20 adversely shift the skill balance all for the sake of "time". Unfortunately I'm too young to have seem "true" test cricket instead of this 5-day garbage. that was the start of "shrinking" the greatest game in the world. and yes it is played in North America, in fact the first ever international 'Test' was between Canada and U.S.A.
Redshirting is probably most common in American college football. Here's a bit of why it makes sense.
First, as others have noted, there's physical development. Most college freshmen simply don't have the muscle mass and conditioning to play at a high level. If they didn't redshirt, they'd lose a year of eligibility for no real gain.
Second, consider the nature of American college football, at least on the high end. A team in Division 1 (the top division) can have 85 scholarship players. Most will have at least a few non-scholarship players as well.
Now, remember that 11 players from a team will be on the field at once. Assuming (as is almost always the case) there is no overlap between offensive and defensive players, that's 22 players 'starting'. Assume each has a backup and each backup plays. Now you're at 44. Maybe a third set comes in. That's 66.
That means you've got a couple of dozen guys who realistically will never get on the field. Again, if they can't redshirt, that means they lose a year of playing time for no good reason.
Then consider the game itself. A typical college team will play 11 or 12 games in a season. They'll practice many times that often (not under game conditions, but still).
A redshirting player will work against competition that's at or above their level many times over a year. They won't get thrown in over their head, and they also won't get put into a game during 'garbage time' (when a team is way ahead or way behind) simply to get some time on the field (which isn't 'real game conditions,' meaning they won't learn much from it).
So, a redshirting player gets 5 years to learn and develop. A non-redshirting player gets 4. For the occasional 'phenom,' who's able to perform at a high level, that's fine, but for those who can't it generally gives them a better chance of playing in more games overall.
The whole thing is complicated by the fact that one can participate in a limited number of games and still 'redshirt'. That number can vary (by which conference you're in, for instance), but it's usually a few. So, you may be able to get a bit of in-game experience without giving up the year of eligibility.
Interestingly enough, the NFL is starting to (informally) 'redshirt' more high draft picks than they used to. It used to be that a top college player, drafted early, would almost always play in their rookie season. There's been a slow trend toward letting some players have a year to learn the system and adapt to the NFL's level of competition.
The other factor here is that, in many college sports, there's no longer a 'reserve team' or an 'age group team'. US schools used to have a 'junior varsity' level, but that's almost entirely gone (mostly due to expense versus revenue).
The NFL currently doesn't have a 'developmental league' (though some of the alternative leagues have functioned as one and continue to do so). Pretty much, college football is the 'developmental league,' and college players are assumed to either be NFL-worthy or not when their college eligibility ends. That makes maximizing those years of college eligibility a priority.
The other factor here is that, in many college sports, there's no longer a 'reserve team' or an 'age group team'. US schools used to have a 'junior varsity' level, but that's almost entirely gone (mostly due to expense versus revenue).
I think that's the decisive point. Despite the very top levels of sport being awash with cash, the career developmental pathways are underfunded. Hence the pretence that redshirting is a good thing, because there isn't the funding to enable n-stringers to play competitively.
AJ
I'm not familiar with players voluntarily taking a year off. It's typically for season-ending injuries or (before the new rules) having to sit out a year after transferring from another school at the same level.
In all the sports I've played, taking a year off from competition would leave a player at a serious disadvantage to their peers.
I guess it's an American thing.
AJ,
Remember that American college sports are regulated by the NCAA, which exists strictly to serve the interests of the member institutions (colleges and universities).
Successful college sports programs attract talented athletes. So with a small number of years of success, a coach will have (1) a successful team, obviously; and (2) a higher-grade of recruit wanting to attend their program.
This leads to the aforementioned problem of having talent going to waste, because the current champions are on the playing field, but the next seasons champions are on the bench.
In addition, there really are benefits to delays for basketball and football. They are full of 4-sigma athletes, and a year of growth can make a huge difference. Redshirts are not off the team. They can practice with the team, and can even participate in a very small number of games in the season. (More useful for football, where the total # of games played is low, so even one game played can have an impact.)
As a result of this, *coaches* want to be able to put an athlete on the shelf and not cost them a year of playing time. Being able to do this helps convince the athlete to come to their school, instead of going to some other school which might not be as good, but where they would more likely get game minutes.
Finally, there are some trivial "human factors" reasons, like "just got to this country and doesn't speak the language" or "entire family was machine-gunned by , needs a year to recover." The kind of incredibly rare stuff that nobody seriously cares about, but which makes good copy for the recruitment video.
Again: keep in mind that NCAA sports are a massively for-profit industry that relies on unfairly-compensated labor, and almost all the "rules" are tilted to favor the coaches, the universities, and only lastly the students. It makes a lot more sense when you filter it that way.
(Also remember: if your college or university pays the president more money than the coach, you attend an "Institution." But if the sports coach and/or athletic director are paid more than the president, then you attend a "School!" And there ain't no such thing as "Educational Institution Spirit"...)
Yeah, the players would be much better off if the NFL and NBA created a minor league system not affiliated with universities.
The Universities don't want to let go because as is, men's football and men's basketball pretty much fund the entire athletics department at most US Universities.
Again: keep in mind that NCAA sports are a massively for-profit industry that relies on unfairly-compensated labor, and almost all the "rules" are tilted to favor the coaches, the universities, and only lastly the students. It makes a lot more sense when you filter it that way.
That's now untrue. NCAA athletes are now paid exactly what they are worth on the open market. For some that's millions, for some it's scholarship money and for some it's nothing.
As to coaches vs presidents, it is simply supply and demand. Good coaches are hard to find and bad ones get fired. Good presidents are hard to find and bad ones get to stay on the job forever.
9TH SEASON of College football due to redshirting, injuries and covid!!! Holy Caroly!
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/miami-tight-end-returning-unprecedented-9th-season-college-football
Here is an extreme example of redshirting:
"One example is Summer Allen of Weber State, whose competitive college career spanned 9 seasons. She competed in both the 2013 and 2021 NCAA Women's Division I Cross Country Championship. Her eligibility was extended by going on an 18-month LDS Church mission that spanned 2 years of eligibility, redshirting 1 year, having a pregnancy 1 year, and losing a season due to COVID.[6]"
I know a player at one of the "Blue Blood" basketball programs. He had 7 years of eligibility. Played 2 seasons then went on a Morman mission for 2. Came back and took a redshirt year. Then played his junior and senior seasons.
Why did he agree to take so long? He knew after his freshman year that the NBA wasn't in his future. Instead he got a degree and a first year in grad school paid for.
probably for comparability across the board, as most players don't get to play in the playoffs.
There is another niche meaning to "redshirting," related to your first impression.
Some professional authors will include the names of people they meet or know (or who win a "prize") as meaningless supporting characters who will die or disappear offscreen never to return.
Thus, it's possible for "Joe Smith" to win a prize in some publisher gimmick, and then see his name appear as a redshirt mall security guard who is the first to be eaten by the BEM, or whatever.
This is the active-verb form of "redshirting", I guess, as related to the Star Trek version.
Some professional authors will include the names of people they meet or know (or who win a "prize") as meaningless supporting characters who will die or disappear offscreen never to return.
I was redshirted in 'Beth' by Pixy VI. The story is complete and inactive and I haven't been killed yet, but I can always hope ;-)
AJ
I'm going to kill you really horribly now... 😁
If it means a new instalment of 'Beth' to read, it's a small price to pay :-)
AJ
Explosive decompression is a horrible, if inadequate punishment for punning.
I might make you a banker...
Catching up on my 'to-do' list and doing a bit of story editing. I'd actually forgotten that I had made you a Space Station. Not quite the same, granted, but I can still kill you, and I can also give you some nasty pestulant station wide vermin infections, so that's a bonus...
I'd actually forgotten that I had made you a Space Station.
A Space Station? Moi? I'm flattered. Babylon 5, Deep Space 9 - I'm in good company ;-)
In an unfinished story languishing in my hopper, there's a Space Station that's so Top Secret that nobody knows its name. The few who know of its existence refer to it as Spook Central. But then there's a war on and humans are losing.
AJ
The Many Deaths of Joe Buckley is an anthology of the fictional deaths inflicted on a critic on the Baen forums by the authors he annoyed.
I think it was Larry Correia who would redshirt readers in return for a donation to charity.
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote a sci-fi fandom member into Footfall, then had him die heroically at the fans request.
I think John Ringo did it, too. But I'm not sure if he did it for money, or for spite. (Maybe a little of both...)
I think once the meme gets into a circle of authors, it's nigh impossible to get rid of, so long as they need disposable characters with recognizable names. (Plenty of Farooqs and Mohammeds die in Ringo's stuff, but there are some Carls and Chessleys as well. Every once in a while you just have to shoot some mouth-breather and take his pickup truck...)
You are correct, I had my authors mixed up. John Ringo would red shirt readers that donated to a fund for abused women. Larry Correia did Joe Buckley, he also wrote the worst, most persistent troll of his IRL forum as a green troll living in a basement subsisting on cheetos and addicted to the internet.
I think it was Larry Correia who would redshirt readers in return for a donation to charity.
Stuart MacBride is a Scottish author who does the same. The more you donate to his chosen charity, the bigger your involvement in the story.