So we're through four games and Morris had a few snaps against Central. If he were not to play again this year, would he still be eligible to get a redshirt? If so, should consideration be given to not using him unless Gardner is hurt (for more than a play or two)? The last two games make it very likely that Gardner will be back next year so getting Morris ready for next year is less of an issue.
Shane Morris and his Redshirt
Once you play a single play you burn your redshirt. It doesn't matter who the opponent is or if it is just running down the field on special teams.
The only way to get a redshirt is if you have a documented injury.
you have to play 20 to 25 percent of the games played. so if you play 4 games your orangeshirt is gone.
He is confused or it was a really lame attempt at humor.
The 20-25% he mentions only applies to medical redshirts so he must be confused.
False! This isn't hard, people. If you get in for a single play in a single game, your redshirt is burned. Period.
(Medical redshirts are a different issue and not relevant here.)
But what about your orangeshirt?
There are many different colored shirts one can burn. In fact, the possibilities are almost endless. Cue the Bubba from Forrest Gump monotone: "They's yella shirts, green shirts...............purple and gray shirts.......that, thats about it.)
One of the first things Hoke did was replace all the redshirts with orangeshirts.
Medical redshirts are just as relevant here as they were in Devin's case. I'm just sayin'...
They'll probably claim some injury and ask for a medical redshirt. It's not an unusual strategy.
he's going to get meaningful snaps this year. write it down.
Medical is the only way.
His shirt is burned. However if he were to suddenly come down with a terrible ouch-y back right now he could apply for a medical redshirt. Sometimes guys play a few downs early in the season in a game that doesn't matter, and then they come down with terrrible ouch-y backs.
Are you suggesting that Devin Gardner's back injury was in some manner exaggerated?
HOW DARE YOU SIR
The proper term is, I believe, ouch-y back.
Please see Devin Gardner, 2010 season
I could be wrong, but the only other circumstances that I think the bylaws outline in addition to the medical waiver are for events which are "beyond the control" of the student-athlete, such as natural disasters or extreme financial hardship within the family (due to layoff or death, for example). I would assume that nearly every case of the waiver being invoked is for medical reasons though.
Ok I'm taking bets on when the next thread about a Morris redshirt.... O/U set at 10.5 days
And then if it is like Gardner's redshirt the thread will appear like clockwork with the questions asked over and over....
put me down for 50 in 2 days..
Hmm...tough one. I'm gonna have faith in the board and take the over. The day after the Minny game, will be the next time we'll have another thread on the topic.
take the under.
...what about kelly baraka?
sorry, wrong board.
The way the offensive line is playing right now, a Medical redshirt seems uncomfortably likely should Morris play behind it.
He plays behind the backup o-line in practice! If they are struggling more than the current starters that should be all the proof the NCAA needs to know Morris is hurting!
Redshirt due to broken heart.
of business against Akron and UCONN, Shane Morris would have 3 games of experience and the redshirt burning would be the non-issue it should be.
With that said, it is terribly frustrating to once again see a Michigan team not be able to trot out young players to gain experience in these inferior opponent games.
What makes you say they are inferior opponents?
Numbers. And watching them play. And math. And statistics. And numbers.
Numbers like 28-24 and 24-20?
Squeaking by teams and then calling them inferior, it's the Michigan difference.
A Minnesota fan talking smack over here? Really?
Ya, I'm a Minnesota fan and alum, and a current Michigan student. As long as Minnesota and Michigan aren't playing, I always root for Michigan. However, in every opponent recap, or afternoon game thread, there is always plenty of condescension towards the Gophers. See the post above as evidence of the comments I refer to.
So as I sit here getting pumped up for Minnesota and Michigan to play, it is difficult to not take the opportunity to call out Michigan fans a little bit about them calling other teams inferior when the last two games have been just abysmal performances offensively. I've been in Ann Arbor long enough to mostly accept the, "We're Michigan, we are better than everyone else" mantra, but right now, I don't think there is a whole lot of on field performance to back that up. But hey, as long as you keep thinking so highly about the program, you can laugh at the idea of a Minnesota fan talking smack and can call teams giving you all you can handle inferior.
Current on-field performance doesn't matter when mocking opponents, history does, we're Michigan!
You're absolutely correct. Akron and UConn are absolutely the complete equal to Michigan. Just because we played like complete dogshit, doesn't mean that Akron and UConn aren't terrible teams. I mean, good teams always lose to Towson or go 1-11 in 3 straight seasons. Jeez dude, give it a rest. I don't think he was showing "Michigan arrogance". I think its pretty common knowledge that the 2 teams we just played were not that good. Which makes our performance against them all the more enraging and frustrating.
I'm not sure I follow your logic when you are sarcastically talking about good teams losing to Towson or going 1-11. I never said Akron or UConn were good. In fact, I would agree that the two teams Michigan just beat are not very good at all, I was simply asking how we came to the conclusion that they were inferior to Michigan. It definitely wasn't from the final score. So is this feeling of superiority from dominating CMU, beating an ND team that is not looking all that great, the potential that I think everyone can see for the future, or just because we are Michigan fergodsakes?
One game is a fluke, two straight games of going down to the wire with supposedly inferior teams may make you start wondering if you are really that much better than your scores suggest.
I always thought the definition of being inferior is having less points than the other guy. Why do they keep score again?
I suppose in a sense you are right, though I would contend that anyone who watched either game knows that the outcome could have gone either way. If the game is essentially a toss-up, I'd have a hard time calling myself vastly superior to my opponent.
Interesting how you just now inserted "vastly" into the discussion. Sure it better makes you point, but is not what the original statement said. So, it doesn't seem intellectually honest.
I used the word vastly due to the poster above my previous response stating that the opponents are inferior because they lost. To me, the term inferior involves some significant degree of quality difference. While the scoreboard says Michigan is better, and I'm not going to argue that point, I would say these two scores are probably close enough to indicate the game could have gone either way. To me, that isn't a significant enough difference in quality to use the term inferior. So, I added vastly to indicate that while I guess you can argue that the scoreboard says you are superior, I think there needs to be a bit more of a beatdown before terms like superior and inferior are used. Perhaps my understanding of superiority is outside of the simple definition of just being better than something else. But if I'm going to be calling Michigan superior, I want to see a beatdown that leaves Akron not crossing the 50 yard line all game, not a game where Akron is one yard away of winning. So, the term vastly was just a lazy way around explaining this whole paragraph, and acknowleding that while the poster I was responding to took a cute way out of the argument, his definition of inferiority lacked what I viewed as a necessary magnitude of quality difference.
Calling an opponent "inferior", even after a very close game that could easily have ended in a loss, isn't necessarily a reflection of some inflated sense of self worth. In the cases of Akron and UConn, it's simply a recognition of the opposing team's standing among all FBS teams. When we say that Akron and UConn are "inferior", we could very plausibly simply be claiming that they rank in the very bottom tier of FBS teams, based on prior results and the general size, athleticism, and skill of their players.
For a similar case study in the use of the word "inferior", see Minnesota, University of.
If you are basing the use of inferior on your recognition of these team's standing among all FBS teams, then you must also be assuming a higher standing for your own team. The polls suggest that is correct, but as I stated in one of my other replies above, after two straight close calls with terrible teams, I'm not sure that current on-field performance would give any indication that Michigan is performing at a level that puts them in a realm where they can feel superior to these teams.
If you want to base claims of inferiority on size, athleticism, skills, and stars, I suppose I can't argue that one much, and Michigan will have that on most teams. However, it seems like that metric kind of minimizes the importance of on-field performance, which I would say matters. UConn didn't really look inferior out there.
And if you want to base it on prior results, well that seems a bit silly. Michigan may have the most wins ever, but this current group of players was in on less than 5% of those. Historically, I agree, almost every program in the country is inferior to Michigan, but that seems like a pretty shaky way to compare your current team against your opponents. But hey, at least the Gophers seem a bit less inferior if we want to use that measure.
If by prior results you mean results from this season, UConn was probably licking their chops after that Akron game. They probably thought even they could beat Akron by a couple touchdwons.
. . . and you can go back to your hole with the certainty that Minnesota will win in a couple of weeks, just like "UConn was licking their chops after that Akron game."
No way would I wager on the Gophers in that game. I know what Gardner is capable of, or at least I think I do. The Gophers will probably lose again. I was just amused that a fan of a team who has barely escaped two of the worst teams in college football is referring to these teams as inferior. Scoreboard says you are about as close to even as you can get.
If the Gophers do miraculously win, it would be interesting to see how many people say they got beat by a superior team. I'm pretty sure I know the answer though, which makes me think these definitions of inferiority are rooted somewhere beyond on-field play in 2013.
And why would that be? Under your "scoreboard" definition, Minnesota has beaten its opponents by far more than Michigan has beaten Akron and UConn. Since you're not willing to stand by your own definition of inferiority/superiority, it's almost like you're just the usual opposing fan who's trying to take advantage of a trolling opportunity before the game is played.
Minnesota and Michigan have zero common opponents, which makes it tough for me to use my scoreboard definition. I have no idea how Minnesota would fare against UConn or Akron. It's not like UNLV, Western Illinois, or New Mexico State are setting the world on fire. We haven't beaten anyone as good as Notre Dame, I am pretty sure about that.
As for why I wouldn't pick the Gophers, I think Minnesota is too one-dimensional right now to beat Michigan. We've thrown 28 passes in 4 games. I imagine that will be easy enough for Mattison to scheme against. Even if Gardner gives us the ball three times during the game, I'm not convinced we can score enough points to win.
I'm really not just a troll though, I read this blog daily throughout the year, and believe it or not, do root for Michigan. There are just certain things about this blog, and maybe about many of the people at the University of Michigan, that irk me, such as the condescension towards "inferior" schools. When I saw that same condescension being placed on teams that Michigan barely beat, I decided it was a nice opportunity to call into question these beliefs of superiority.
But when several others have explained their basis for calling Akron and UConn "inferior" -- as B Mac explains, this wacky notion of "numbers" tends to back that up -- and you respond that this reliance on a wealth of statistics is "condescension," I don't think you're going to get too far in "call[ing] into question" the supposed attitude of Michigan fans. Perhaps you could acknowledge, based on the entire history of football (or organized sports, for that matter), that better teams sometimes struggle to beat inferior ones -- or, heck, even lose to them on occasion. That doesn't prevent us from making educated guesses on how those teams will measure up when the dust settles on the season as a whole. For example, I'll go out on a limb and say Michigan will be bowl-eligible and Akron and UConn will not.
I'm sure I won't get far on a Michigan board calling into question your arrogance. That would be quite the uphill battle.
I would say that I did acknowledge in another post that sometimes there are upsets. But as I stated above, one game is a fluke, two in a row, you might start to worry that you aren't as good as you thought you were. Historically, trends tend to be indicative of things as well.
I'm not sure where these wealth of statistics that you mention comes from that support your superiority over these teams. Per the front page, Michigan is 118 out of 123 FBS team in tackles for loss allowed. Michigan is also 112 out of 123 in terms of turnover margin, largely due to being tied for 10th in interceptions thrown. And they are generally kind of middle of the pack in other offensive categories. I'm not going to take the time to find Akron and UConn in these, I'm sure they are terrible, and I didn't intend to spend my whole afternoon typing out responses that are longer than most everyone cares to read. However, it seems to me that the numbers you want to point to don't show a team that is being dominant in any way, nor does the scoreboard. Consequently, I don't think claim of other team's inferiority is beyond question.
in just about every way that you can measure. long term, short term, whatever. this cannot be argued, and a couple of struggles against mediocre opponents doesn't change that.
We'll see about the short-term. I feel like only fans of Michigan and a handful of other blueblood schools would be able to maintain the ability to feel superior to other teams after squeaking by two of the worst teams in college football. I know that after Minnesota struggled with Western Illinois and only won by 16, a good portion of our fans simply conceded the Big 10 season. Must be nice to have that history and recruiting stars to rest on so you can keep that positive attitude of being better than everyone.
NOW you're just trolling. You're an opposing fan and your only posting history involves bitching about Michigan people on a blog, seemingly purely because you're butthurt that your team hasn't done shit for 50 years. In other words, I don't believe a word you say about "reading this blog daily" or "rooting for Michigan."