when is a stupid redshirt not a stupid redshirt?
On ESPN's Michigan site there is an article assesing Michigan's RB play this season. It points on some things that "worked" and some that didn't. Specifically it notes that:
Perhaps it wasn't worth it to burn an entire season for 13 carries.
So that got me thinking...Isn't it possible he could still be eligable for a medical redshirt? I know the rules are a bit wonky (specially since we have to sweat out Gardner's) but a little bit of internet research returned the following:
To receive a medical hardship waiver - in any sport - the injury must limit the student-athlete’s participation to no more than 20 percent of the team’s contests (rounded to the next whole number), with all participation occurring in the first half of the season.
Therefore, for a football player, the maximum number of games that he can play in and still receive a medical hardship waiver is three (20 percent of 11 equals 2.2, which is rounded up to 3), and none of his time on the field can occur after the fifth game (the sixth game of an eleven game season is considered in the second half of the season).
In the case of a 12 game regular season (ie. Michigan 2011), none of the player's time on the field can occur after the sixth game. The seventh game of a 12 game season is considered in the second half of the season.
Does anyone know if that's accurate? If it is, Rawls was still technically eligible after his 10 carries against Minny (assuming he came down with "an injury"), but it looks like his 1 carry against Purdue is going to cost him a full year of eligibility.
I remember reading somewhere that the staff told Rawls he wouldn't reshirt but was it really worth it for one carry?
Is it possible they played him knowing he'd reshirt next season?
Was he THAT good that the staff needed to get him on the field?
I hold Hoke in incredibly high regard, and I'm certain he didn't just goof, so what's the deal?
Did I miss something?