HenneGivenSunday

January 23rd, 2017 at 10:35 AM ^

I thought of this immediately when I read it. I got into a huge argument with my brother-in-law when Ed Davis got his 6th year for this exact reason. There doesn't seem to be any consistency when the NCAA makes these decisions. I am in no way surprised that he didn't get one given how the humongous ax that they seem to have to grind with Harbaugh. Total bullshit.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

BigBlue02

January 23rd, 2017 at 2:35 PM ^

Giving good advice is a pretty low standard for practice player of the week. Does MSU ever give it to team managers? How shitty is the rest of the practice squad that they can't beat out an injured player on the sidelines for practice player of the week?

reshp1

January 23rd, 2017 at 10:51 AM ^

How so? They both took a regular redshirt and then lost a season to injury. Whether Clark got to play a bit before he got hurt is irrelevant as the rule very clearly makes an allowance for being injured early in the season within the first 4 games. 

NRK

January 23rd, 2017 at 2:45 PM ^

EDIT: As noted above, it's 4 games because they due to math by saying "what is 30% of the season" and then round, so .3 x 12 = 3.6, or .3 x 13* = 3.9, both round to 4, and you need to have "more than" so 4th game injury would be fine

(*it appears they count the conference championship game, regardless of whether you play in it, but the math doesn't impact it).

The rule is just that you participated in it, not that the player "completed" the game himself:

 

In team sports, the injury or illness occurs when the student-athlete has not participated in more than three contests or dates of competition (whichever is applicable to that sport) or 30 percent (whichever number is greater) of the institution's scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in his or her sport.

 

(12.8.4(c)) The reference to a "completed contest" is that the contest itself was completed, not that the player himself completed the contest. It comes from a change to the rule to deal with cancelled games to due natural disaster, weather, etc. 

If you dig through the history you can see that Proposal 2000-76 (Link) makes the chance from "completed" to "scheduled" with this rationale:

The current hardship-waiver legislation, which measures the first half of the playing season by the number of completed contests or dates of competition rather than scheduled contests or dates of competition, leaves injured student-athletes uncertain as to whether they will be granted a medical-hardship waiver until the end of the playing season. The proposed change would provide injured student-athletes with more certainty as to the outcome of a medical-hardship waiver. Additionally, measuring the first half of the playing season by the number of scheduled contests (as set prior to the first scheduled contest or date of competition) will eliminate inequitable results that occur when games are cancelled due to inclement weather, power outages and other forces of nature. Measuring the first half of the playing season in this manner also will eliminate the need for hastily arranged make-up games.

 

It's then added back in by Proposal 2005-23 (Link) to read "scheduled or completed" echoing that rationale:

 

Rationale: Currently, there is an inconsistency between hardship waivers and season of competition waivers. Hardship waivers are calculated based on scheduled dates of competition, while season of competition waivers are based on completed dates of competition. The hardship waiver was amended a few years ago from completed to scheduled contests with the purpose of bringing clarity to injured student-athletes uncertain as to whether they will be granted a medical-hardship waiver until the end of the playing season. Additionally, measuring the first half of the playing season by the number of scheduled contests (as set prior to the first scheduled contest or date of competition) will eliminate inequitable results that occur when games are cancelled due to inclement weather, power outages and other forces of nature. Some instances, however, have arisen where the use of completed contests would prove more beneficial to the student-athlete. This proposal will permit student-athletes applying for either waiver to use the calculation method most beneficial to their situation. [....]

Basically, the rule is based on the game itself, not the player's participating in it, as far as I understand it.

NRK

January 23rd, 2017 at 2:43 PM ^

This issue was always going to be a problem for Clark, given the 3 game/30 precent rule of the hardship waiver, but it should not have impacted Davis, given the nature of his availability on the Scout team. EDIT: Now that I look at it again, 30% of 12 games = 3.6, and the NCAA rounds up (Rule 12.8.4.3.6), which would be 4 games, so that would not have knocked him out.

 

Davis was listed as a Scout team participant on MSU's page for him in the 2011 season (Link):

 

2011 SEASON: Redshirted . . . named Scout Team Defensive Player of the Week vs. Minnesota . . . selected Scout Team Special Teams Player of the Week vs. Central Michigan.

 

 The Central Michigan game was their fourth game of the year (sept 24), the Minnesota game was their ninth game of the year (Nov 5, 10th week of the season if you count their bye week). 

 

You're asking to extend the Five year clock (NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1.5), so it needs to be "circumstances beyond your control" (Link to NCAA Bylaws on this):

This waiver may be granted, based upon objective evidence, for reasons that are beyond the control of the student-athlete or the institution, which deprive the student-athlete of the opportunity to participate for more than one season in his or her sport within the five-year period. 

 

(12.8.1.5.1.) What qualifies as "circumstances beyond control" is defined in 12.8.1.5.1.1 and includes: injury that prevented competition, immediate family member injury, erroneous academic advice, natrual disasters, or extreme financial difficulties. it's worth nothing that this section talks about inability to "participate in intercollegiate athletics", except for injury which prevented an individual's ability to "participate in intercollegiate competition" - thus even if he had a family member injury, financial issue, etc. the fact that he was practicing during the 2011 season would negate a hardhsip waiver. 

 

It also specifically does not include redshirts, and this is noted in 12.8.1.5.1.2:

 

12.8.1.5.1.2 Circumstances Within Control. Circumstances that are considered to be within the control of the student-athlete or the institution and cause a participation opportunity to be used include, but are not limited to, the following: (Adopted: 8/10/94, Revised: 10/12/95, 10/9/96, 7/30/10, 7/31/14)

[...]

(d) Redshirt year;

 

Also, 12.8.3.1.3 specifically exempts "preseason exhibitons" and "preseason practice scrimmages" during the initial year. Thus, any other type of practice is implied to count.

 

I still don't understand the Ed Davis decision, but without seeing everything that was submitted it simply doesn't make sense. I have yet to see anything that would suggest he should have been given another year.

AZBlue

January 23rd, 2017 at 10:46 AM ^

Exactly - Davis didn't play at all in his 5th year due to a training camp injury. The dubious thing was him was the first red-shirt status (can only get a 6th if both RS years were injury related.). What also makes Davis unique is that he couldn't even apply for his 6th until late last summer - 5 full school years plus summers by my count - until he actually got his undergrad degree.

We are back

January 23rd, 2017 at 10:34 AM ^

That's fucking bullshit, he got injuries vs PsU which was week 4, Michigan played in 13 games, that's less than 30 pct played he should have qualified. This is a direct response to The NCAA hate for Harbaugh.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad