Too often in college sports we see a problem and suggest a solution, and then we wonder why no one has acted on our suggestion. It’s also true that we also frequently witness some governing body go wrong when it tries to do right. But I think the American Football Coaches’ Association has a good idea here, and I think we’re all hopeful the NCAA listens.

A player’s eligibility clock has been too rigid for too long, and now there’s a chance a football player could play in no more than four games and keep a redshirt.

If passed, theoretically, a coach could unleash his touted four-star freshman running back in the TaxSlayer Bowl.

“I think that would be pretty intriguing to some of the fan bases,” said AFCA executive director Todd Berry, “which might legitimize some of those bowl games and make them more interesting.

Following the AFCA’s board meetings last week in Phoenix, Berry said that while McCaffrey and Fournette made headlines, players shutting it down before a lower-tier bowl game is “not a new thing.” While those particular stars dealt with legitimate health issues last season, others in the past might develop a “magic injury” right before the bowl.

In many cases, the freshmen redshirting are far more excited to be there than the graduating seniors.

“One could argue that [playing redshirts] is not what the bowl games are for,” said Berry. “Well, it is now. We lost this idea that every bowl game mattered a long time ago.”

Thumbs up to Berry for not even trying to make bowl games bigger than what they’ve become.

I see flaws here. A kid could play the final two games of the regular season and then a bowl game — or two playoff games — and maintain that redshirt year, but I’ll admit that’s a minor law, because it puts too much stock into the current model. There’s a fair question as to whether a school should be allowed to add two dozen players to its roster in late November or December or January, and I have to think coaches might want to govern that with something like a cap.

Then again, I’m all for the players, coaches and teams as well as the quality of the seasons the sport has invested so much in while sometimes overlooking the fact they’re longer than ever. The offseason really doesn’t exist. There are 12 games and a bowl and perhaps two bowls. Teams are going to need reinforcements, but it’s also true that the calendar is broad enough now that a) injuries happen earlier (spring, winter and summer, never mind in camp) and b) there’s more time for players to recover.

And we’re only focusing on the end of the season. The medical redshirt rule is strict — 30 percent/three games in the first half of the season — and this would eliminate that nonsense as well as the occasional innocent victims, like kids who don’t play until the fourth game and get hurt in the seventh and can’t play after that.

I’ve long believed they should just be allowed to play five years. They don’t have to, but they should still be allowed to. That won’t change the fact many freshmen aren’t physically ready to play, but maybe that’s in August. Maybe it’s different in November. Perhaps it’s about healing an injury or just maturing, in which case neither should cause a player to lose a season of eligibility.

Allow Dana Holgorsen to explain:

“If you think the kid is ready to play, and he goes out there in September but he’s scared to death, goes out there and plays two series and s—- down his leg, now you’re stuck with him, and the kid’s screwed. He may not play the rest of the year and he’s burned that year.”

Honestly, why do we have the redshirt? Honestly. That’s supposed to help the kind of player or team affected by Holgorsen’s scenario? That’s supposed to help Martell Pettaway? He’s got three years left. He’s most likely going to have a reserve role in 2017, and then he’ll have two years to go. What if he still had four years in his pocket? Who’s hurt by that?

The redhirt seems like a competency exam for a coaching staff’s evaluation abilities. Get it out of here.

So if nothing else, this AFCA suggestion is a way around that, and I don’t even think it’s that big of a deal. Just go ahead and do it. There really isn’t a competitive component here. Yes, I just wondered if teams should be allowed to add a wave of fresh players — who won’t lose their eligibility, by the way — but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. The “Fournette/McCaffrey” thing is propaganda, and what team has a replacement ready for a player like like that who wasn’t already playing? Very rarely will a team debut an all-American. Even if the kid is gifted, he hasn’t been practicing that much, and his knowledge and experience and potential has limitations.

Most likely, it’s players who can step into a package or play a some snaps, either to spell others or to make use of his individual skills. A speedy running back for a different look, a tall receiver for the red zone, a hand-on-the ground defensive end for third downs, a cornerback to return kicks or punts. Depth and special teams would be helped the most, and what’s wrong with that? The truth is, staffs have a hard enough time as it is during the week coaching the 55 or so players they’ll use in a game. Coaching up a B Squad so that it’s ready in November is a lot to ask, and consider that a lot of those players would be on the scout team, and they can’t be stretched much more than that.

So maybe it’s not a seismic shift and it probably doesn’t tilt the competitive balance, though there will be exceptions and teams will quickly be hard at work trying to find ways to maximize the benefit. But it’s a change and it offers flexibility to a silly provision that’s been untouched for too long.