Devin Gardner to redshirt?
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:18 PM ^
to Devin. Do you have a link?
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:21 PM ^
That would be utterly fantastic if true. No-brainer.
Think about it: Trading the rest of this season of DG standing with a clipboard with a 2014 season of DG as a second year starter, 5th year senior quarterback.
Time pull the old Al Cervik move: "Ohhhhh! My arm! I think its broken!"
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^
i think that kangaroo stole my ball
October 23rd, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
Oh, that is the worst-looking hat I ever saw. What, when you buy a hat like that I bet you get a free bowl of soup, huh? It looks good on you though.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:36 PM ^
Keep in mind that medical redshirts are not guaranteed, and are subject to the discretion of the NCAA. So even if he doesn't take another snap this year, it does not necessarily mean we get him back in 2014.
That said, I believe Gardner has only played in 3 games this year, which should qualify him for a redshirt unless my understanding of the rules and/or mathematics is terrible (player must have played in 30% or less of the team's games and suffer from a medical hardship that would justify granting another year of eligibility).
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 PM ^
that the NCAA changed the rule to one play = burned redshirt, not the 30% rule. I could be wrong, but that's what I think is correct.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:39 PM ^
30% applies to medical redshirts. One play = burned redshirt applies to normal ones.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:42 PM ^
thank you. I wasn't completely sure if I was right, but thanks for the clarification!
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:40 PM ^
Not for a medical redshirt. For a regular redshirt..yes, it is burned the second you get on the field.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:45 PM ^
The general rule is one play = burned redshirt. There is an exception to the rule available to players who suffer an injury mid-season, in which case they are at the mercy of the NCAA for a medical redshirt.
If the medical redshirt rule were the same as the regular redshirt rule, there would be no medical redshirt.
EDIT: Beaten by pretty much everyone with a computer.
October 23rd, 2010 at 1:02 AM ^
But some of this confusion may come from basketball which I believe allows some (I don't know the amount) playing time without losing the opportunity for a redshirt.
October 23rd, 2010 at 1:05 AM ^
No, it's the same thing. If you play once, you've burned your redshirt unless you suffer a documented injury that kept you out of every game after the 30% mark.
October 23rd, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
It's 30% or less in games played and in the first half of the season.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:28 PM ^
Man that would be great news
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:29 PM ^
So Devin can redshirt 2011
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:31 PM ^
well..he wouldnt need to redshirt next year if he gets the medical this year. He's not sticking around 6 years if that is what you are thinking.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:52 PM ^
No I was thinking he could redshirt next year and still be a 5th year Senior with no medical redshirt involved
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:46 PM ^
and I don't think of Tate leaving as anything other than a result of RichRod success.
Tate is starting QB material, and if he follows his self-interest, he'll transfer so he can play. I have no problem with players making football decisions in their best interest. (Pouting at the end of the first game--that did no one any good. I'm glad Tate got over it and likely matured some by going through it.)
Heck, even Jim Tressell tries to get his players that are early NFL draft entry prospects the best information available. Not because I believe he's such a great guy, but I think he is just recognizing the reality that the one's with a clear self-interest are going to leave anyway, but by developing credibility in that regard, he might keep a few Donovan Warrens around for another year.
We've got Denard, and we've got Devin. Plus RichRod will likely snag another stud QB next year or the year after. I'll cheer for Tate as long as he doesn't go to a team I dislike.
October 23rd, 2010 at 9:00 AM ^
I'm wondering about somewhere like SDSU or similar. I do agree though that he gracefully transfers at the end of the season and it is an amicable parting.
October 23rd, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^
this god damned Tate transfering thing is getting old. He won't be going anywhere due to the sheer likelihood that any qb in this system is going to take a huge pounding (see Forcier 2009; Robinson, 2010)...he'll get plenty of opportunities to play in the coming years.
October 24th, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^
would you rather have a third year Tate or a second year Gardner? Honestly, I would take a second year Gardner. His potential is greater, size and durability (hopefully) is better.
That being the case you have next year three year Denard, second year Devin, and moderate stud in the making freshman. Where does Tate come into this equation?
I know some of you may point to the Iowa game and Tate's comeback, and the few games he outright won for us as a freshman, and say Tate's the man. Tate is definately the man, but not in this system at this level over time. In my opinion...
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:30 PM ^
Yes please.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^
The dude was what? 26 when he won the Heisman?
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^
Pretty sure he played minor league baseball before going to FSU which is why he was older.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 PM ^
ya because he redshirted four times
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:06 PM ^
This comment is awesome. Jabronis all around!
October 23rd, 2010 at 8:45 AM ^
unfortunately the NCAA has changed the rules to prevent that. Your elgibility starts expiring at age 21 unless you redshirt. I think that the only exception is the guys that take leaves of absence from the university (like Mormon missions and military service). Playing minor league baseball doesn't count anymore.
In Division I only, if a student-athlete has participated as an individual or as a team representative in organized sports competition, that kind of participation during each 12-month period after his/her 21st birthday and prior to initial full-time collegiate enrollment will count as one year of varsity competition in that sport. Any participation in organized competition during time spent in the U.S. armed services will be excepted.
(In other words, Wienke needed to decide before he was 21 that he wasn't good enough at baseball before quitting and going to FSU. The oldest that a NCAA D1 player can be now is 25.)
October 23rd, 2010 at 9:10 AM ^
That only applies if the prospect is playing organized sports. Though highly unlikely, a prospect could not enroll until he was 23 and still have four years as long as they were not playing another sport. Billy Sims comes to mind as IIRC he won the Heisman at 25 because he didn't enroll after HS as he was working to help support his family.
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
How new is this 25 year old rule because the oldest player in college football history was Tim Frisby. He was 39 when he played receiver for University of South Carolina.
October 26th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
I'm not so sure that quote applies to the Wienke-type situation because of this part of the quote:
that kind of participation during each 12-month period after his/her 21st birthday and prior to initial full-time collegiate enrollment will count as one year of varsity competition in that sport.
Bolded part is the key, at least as I read it. I could be reading that wrong, though...
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 PM ^
I doubt they grant it. He played in 3 games where 4 is the threshold and on top of that they were nonconsecutive so the inference will be that he was available for more than 30% of the season. If the NCAA can't see through this they are pretty thick. It's worth a shot though.
October 23rd, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^
It has nothing to do with being available; if you don't play, you don't play. The rule is 30% and you can't play in the second half of the season. It doesn't matter which games so long as they are in the first half of the season. Devin could play in the 1st, 2nd, and 6th games and still get a medical redshirt so long as the injury is in the first half of the season and he doesn't play another down. It would be pretty easy for UM to come up with an injury to Devin. Sprained ankle, pulled hammy/quad; any number of injuries that linger would affect a guys ability to play on Saturdays.
The real question is if UMs wants to try to "make up" an injury given the recent investigations.
October 23rd, 2010 at 2:09 AM ^
You're right about the logistics, but it does require that the injury results in "incapacity to compete for the remainder of the playing season". A sprained ankle or pulled hammy isn't going to reach that threshold. Remember it's not the NCAA that will review Devin's medical hardship applications, it's the Big Ten.
October 23rd, 2010 at 2:18 AM ^
That's interesting. I had no idea it was governed by individual conferences, which is what it sounds like you're saying. In that case, who does ND answer to for a medical redshirt?
October 23rd, 2010 at 6:41 AM ^
The Vatican.
October 23rd, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
ND players are reviewed by the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, which I'm pretty sure is NCAA run.
October 23rd, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
But if he continually reaggrivates that ankle at practice and that keeps him out of games, then yes, he'll get a medical for a sprained ankle.
October 23rd, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
It would still be up to the conference.
October 23rd, 2010 at 2:42 PM ^
Yes, but it is unlikely they deny his claim. Whether he has a sprained ankle or a torn ACL, it has kept him from playing when Denard has come out of games. There's no denying that.
October 23rd, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
There is. If he has a sprained ankle, the Big Ten might infer that it was actually Tate that kept Devin off the field,.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:58 PM ^
I'm sure they'll petition for a medical redshirt, but I'm not sure the NCAA would grant one given the circumstances (him playing in various games, looking healthy out there, convenient timing, etc.). Personally, I thought it was a weird decision to play him early in the season just to prove a point to Tate or to give him a couple of minutes of game experience, since I much rather have a 4th year of a seasoned Gardner than the freshman vesion. Ah well.
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
IIRC, Herron had a very similar situation his freshman year. He played special teams for a few games, then did not play the last 6-7 games of the year. Everyone expected him to be a Soph. the next year, but the roster came out at RFr. He was granted a medical redshirt for whatever "injury" he had that kept him off the field the second half of the season
Also, I think B. Hawthorne had an "injury" the second half of last year too. He is a RFr. and played about 3-4 games on special teams last year.
October 23rd, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
You are right. I guess it just comes down to how the NCAA views the "injury" and if there is enough evidence provided to support the claim. Personally, if Devin has some legit injury (and you never know what happens in practice), then by all means given him the RS.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:59 PM ^
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:02 PM ^
So his injury is turf toe? I haven't seen anything about this, so I'm just curious what this mystery injury is that everyone else seems to know about.
Plus, my confusion hasn't been helped by the fact that quotation marks seem to permeate the "thread."
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^
October 23rd, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^
for not finishing the marathon?
October 23rd, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^
Outstanding reference to "The League." Well played, Mr. Geaux Blue. Well played indeed.
October 22nd, 2010 at 9:59 PM ^
Before we speculate, can we possibly substantiate the injury?? Where is this coming from?
October 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 PM ^
It's coming from the "get Inside the Fort" on Rivals. The writer talks about it and states he expects the NCAA to grant it because of his limited playing time. www.thewolverine.com