Uh-oh. #27 is taken??

Submitted by Decatur Jack on February 16th, 2013 at 10:27 PM

There seems to be a slight problem in the Michigan roster.

Derrick Green wore #27 in high school and cites Eddie George (who also wore #27) as his favorite player. When Green committed, he had a #27 jersey on the wall behind the projector screen.

Slight problem: walk-on wide receiver Jonathan Keizer has a claim to #27, according to mgoblue.com.

So, what number does Derrick Green wear? I hope this doesn't become a big problem. We were able to get Pipkins to wear #56 like he wanted. Hopefully we can do the same here.

Any thoughts?

UPDATE!:

After doing some research, I've found that you can have duplicate numbers on a roster, but not on the same side of the ball. This is why #27 LB Mike Jones (who is a scholarship athlete) would not have to forfeit his number and is irrelevant to this discussion.

If you look at Michigan's roster, there are no duplicate numbers on offense. There is no evidence to suggest that, as some posited, two players can have the same numbers on offense as long as one stays off the field. I don't where you guys found that rule, but I'd be curious to see it.

I also found that, despite Hoke's statement that he treats all the players equally ("our 115 sons"), scholarship athletes always get preference to walk-ons. The most likely scenario here is that Keizer would be reassigned a number and Green would wear #27.

I had hoped that this thread would become a discussion about what numbers Green could possibly wear instead of #27 in the event that Hoke decides to let Keizer keep the number (a definite possibility, and don't be surprised if you see it happen).

Instead, this largely became a ridiculing of the original post's premise, whether or not player numbers need to be discussed on the board, and the implication that Green might transfer if not granted #27 (which is fine, mea culpa on that last one).

Comments

bdsisme

February 16th, 2013 at 10:30 PM ^

Really, this is worthy of a board topic?  Pretty sure Green will talk to Keizer about it, and pretty sure Keizer will let Green have the number for the appropriate number of Chipotle burritos.

DanGoBlue

February 17th, 2013 at 12:33 AM ^

That recently went to committee. Two of the rules specifically deal with players' numbers—one requiring officials be notified of number changes occurring during a game and the other disallowing two players on the same team and at the same position from wearing the same number. To help those keeping score at home, this means its pretty common for more than one player to wear a particular number. So much so that the NCAA already has rules in place and is considering additional rules to govern the many instances where this already occurs. It's a non issue and that's the reason you are catching so much flak Decatur.

JHendo

February 17th, 2013 at 12:38 AM ^

You're absolutely right.  This is more relevant than a lot of other threads on the board right now.  However, if I was to create a thread about how I drove past the big house today, it also would be technically "more relevant" than the 35 y.o. retiree.  Relevancy does not necessarily constitute board worthiness.

This is something that happens all the time (pros, college and even high school), and isn't a big deal (for the team, for the blog, and/or for Derrick).  Either Derrick will move on to a new number, he and Keizer will make a deal,  they'll share the number or the walk on will be forced to give it up if Green is a baby about it.  If you're still concerned about it, Green's already signed is LOI, so he's locked in, and if a jersey number is enough for him to want to transfer, do you really someone so thickheaded like that on the team anyways.  Quit worrying and think before creating a thread next time (the tribe's clearly spoken that this was best left unposted).

Phil Brickma

February 16th, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^

It's only a problem if they both are on the field at the same time. There are plenty of repeat numbers when you include walk-ons. Unless Keizer is the next Jordan Kovacs, it's a non-issue.

MaizeNBlueTexan

February 16th, 2013 at 10:34 PM ^

Why don't we also freak out about Devin Gardner wearing 12 as a QB, and that being Shane's number in high school?

I think this matter much more to fans and OP than it does Green.

Mlaw2010

February 16th, 2013 at 10:40 PM ^

Are you seriously implying that D Green might get so upset that 27 is taken that he will transfer?  That's a joke right?  Seriously, that's the most ridiculous thing that's ever been posted on MGoBlog - and that's saying something.  Regardless, if it's a big enough issue, I'm sure the walk on will give up the number. 

Mlaw2010

February 16th, 2013 at 11:17 PM ^

Actually, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. You can have 2 of the same number on the roster but you can't have 2 offensive players or defensive players who both wear a number. So Green could share the number with a DB but not a WR. In fact, a quick scan of Michigan's roster shows that this interpretation is correct at least in terms if how the roster is made up right now.

rob f

February 17th, 2013 at 7:18 AM ^

that you can't have two players with the same # on the field at the same time.  Unless you have the "luck" of the Irish, that is:

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7hwQyCBRoEYAS1VXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1NW…

Notre Dame’s “Desperado” Brain cramp. The Irish’s game-saving break on Kevin Harper’s missed 33-yard field goal could’ve been erased because of a special teams snafu, with both Bennett Jackson and Chris Brown being a part of the Irish’s kick block team. Since both players wear the number two, they aren’t allowed to be on the field at the same time unless one of them switches jerseys and declares himself to the refs. But that didn’t happen, and while the refs didn’t spot it, it could’ve been called for a penalty, a situation that already happened when Danny McCarthy and Justin Ferguson both wore No. 15.

Kelly didn’t sugarcoat the mistake when he discussed it Sunday.

“It was a coaching mistake. We had put our Desperado team on there, and Chris Brown is part of Desperado,” Kelly explained. “Just we’ve got to do a better job. An oversight that can’t happen.”