Drew Ott - Medical Redshirt?
- Thread starter Actiondouble
- Start date
The criteria for percentage games/quarters played does not work out. Iowa is going with an angle that he only played a few snaps in several of those quarters because of the injuries, eg. the Pitt game. Basically, if he weren't such a badass, he wouldn't have played. If he doesn't get the fifth year, he will be penalized for being a complete badass, and that is dumb.
Actually he will be penalized for being a badass "Hawkeye" . The LAST thing the media wants is us back in the picture next year muckin up their final four dreams
As Birky mentioned above, Ott does not technically meet all the criteria. However, exceptions can be made if there are extenuating circumstances for a particular player.
In Ott's case, I am not sure why anyone would argue strongly against him receiving an extra year. However, the NCAA hardly treats players fairly or uses common sense, and thus I am not optimistic that we will see Ott playing for Iowa next year.
At this point, how could you possibly question that judgment? Your apparent bewilderment is the real head-scratcher.
Not only did he outperform him early, but VandeBerg was far and away the leading receiver for Iowa this year. Meanwhile, Willies quits the team midseason, subsequently surrenders an opportunity to return, and then ends up at some obscure JC in Texas. Night and day, those two.
Vandenberg is an excellent player. Why wouldn't you play him?
As others have mentioned, the argument that Iowa is using is that Drew didn't redshirt, he played in only four games his freshman season, and then only a handful of games this year (and only a fraction of those quarters/plays). Thus, he really only got 3 full years to play. It's a long shot, but you might as well try.
Its going to come down to the subjective opinion of the committee that hears his case. Objectively, he doesn't qualify. The argument they're going to make is pretty clear, we just don't know if that is going to matter. This is all about precedent in my opinion.
I think that it is probably more of a reflection that people tend to equate "athleticism" with being the "better" player. There is a whole undercurrent in athletics that attempts to undercut the mental and technical side of the game. This isn't a criticism of VandeBerg either - he's a quick and athletic dude. However, Willies was a bit of a freak - impressive size combined with great leaping ability and near-elite speed.
Anyhow, within the "status quo" of the culture of the game - guys who perceive themselves as superior athletes tend to have an entitlement complex - and they assume that they should be playing over other guys. Occasionally other guys on the team may also be impressed with the individual's athleticism and fall victim to the same oversimplified way of looking at who should be playing ... and that can obviously plant seeds of discord within the locker room.
There are a long list of players who seemed to fit that same mold ... and very few overcame that immaturity and learned to actually EARN their time on the field. Cameron Wilson was seemingly one such guy ... he left. Greg Garmon was seemingly such a guy ... he left. Marcus Grants was seemingly such a guy ... he left. BJ Travers was seemingly such a guy ... he left. Ryan Bain was such a guy ... he stuck it out some, but ultimately left. CJ Fiedorowicz seemed to be such a guy ... but managed to mature and develop. Thank goodness for Mike Daniels and Carl Davis ... because their influence invariably helped guide Jaleel Johnson through his immature phase. Heck, it seems to me that Beathard may have been "one of those guys" too ... and fortunately he matured and stuck around.
If that is what they're relying upon ... I doubt it helps him unless part of the reason why he didn't play earlier was due to injury.
Does their academic standing play a role here?
if they are on track to graduate in 4 years/5 years? poor/good GPA?
if they are on track to graduate in 4 years/5 years? poor/good GPA?
That's not necessarily true. It's a case by case basis and there are extenuating circumstances.
What are the odds Duzey gets another year? Hearing he my be applying for another year too.
I just hope they people saying he has no chance are the same ones last Saturday night and Sunday morning claiming we had no chance at the Rose Bowl.
Seeing how the NCAA works sometimes like with Diallo the Kansas Bball player I wouldn't be surprised if they granted him a 5th year a week after the draft. However in all reality seen and read here February sounds like the time period they'd probably decide.
Seeing how the NCAA works sometimes like with Diallo the Kansas Bball player I wouldn't be surprised if they granted him a 5th year a week after the draft. However in all reality seen and read here February sounds like the time period they'd probably decide.
Couldn't help but notice you left out the fact that Derrick Willies is # 3 ranked in 2016 ESPN Junior College 50, 4* headed to Texas Tech. Don't act like Derrick was a scrub.
Last edited:
Scrub? No. Lacking mental tougness? Selfish? Maybe even a bit of a cancer to the team?
I imagine DW being gone is actually one of the big reasons team chemistry is so much better this season. We all heard many comments about how that team had guys playing for themselves.
Glad the guy left.
Was he physically talented? Sure. But I'd take MVB over him 10 out of 10 times knowing what we know now. (and the team obviously knew then)
This process seems to make no sense at all. If the criteria are clear -- and I assume they are, without actually reading them -- it seems to me that it should be clear whether an athlete qualifies or not. I realize that the NCAA doesn't necessarily function according to logic and/or fairness, but they would be well-advised to set out very clear requirements for a medical redshirt so that athletes who do suffer injuries that cause them to miss considerable time can simply review the requirements and request one if they meet the criteria. Introducing all of this apparent subjectivity only makes the process more laborious for the athlete, his/her coaches, his/her teammates, and his/her fans.
I'm surprised no one is talking or discussing Duzey getting another year. He barely played this year and I think coming back in the spring and then the fall, he'll be back to 100%. We'd have a hell of a tight end duo again with Kittle and Duzey.
I think it's better than 50/50 for both Ott and Duzey.
I think it's better than 50/50 for both Ott and Duzey.
I never said that Willies was a scrub. What I said was (a) MVB outperformed him; this is clearly evident, and (b) Willies is a quitter.
Good for him being ranked high in the junior college ranks. Let's see what he can do at TT. MY guess is that he will pull his diva chit down and it won't go so well......... meanwhile, VandeBerg will be earning All Big Ten honors.
I agree! And on top of this even if he does catch passes at TT is he making the locker room better???
It seems they go down the list shake the magic 8 ball and go with that result.
Duzey has already had a redshirt year. Thus, he'd be petitioning for a 6th year. It takes VERY EXTREME circumstances for a guy to be granted a 6th year of eligibility. That is why nobody is talking about it ... it would be impossible for it to happen.
In another thread on this subject, somebody posted the NCAA rules. They are quite clear.
Any law or rule that is blindly and stringently enforced to the letter is a bad one. You cannot divorce context from instances that push the boundaries of the law/rule.
The utility of clear laws or rules is that instances that aren't near the boundary of applicability are clear-cut ... you can draw conclusions quickly and, for the most part, fairly. However, when you deal with "special cases" ... they really SHOULD be treated on a case-by-case basis. Then, out of fairness, those who are assessing the situation are well advised to follow pass precedent ... because that ensures a more fair/consistent implementation of the rules.
Where unevenness can occur is when new people are on the committee and/or if the committee is lazy and doesn't delve deeply enough into past precedent.
I get what you're saying, ghost, but I'd still favor a very uniform, objective application of this rule. Considering situations on a case-by-case basis may be perceived as compassionate and the right thing to do, but in this context, I think it invites controversy and the uneven application of the rules. In the end, some athletes get the benefit of the doubt whereas others don't, only because it's virtually impossible for a committee -- especially a committee whose makeup is constantly evolving -- to be 100% consistent in its application of the rules. Ultimately, the process becomes inconsistent and, therefore, inherently unfair.
And what I'm saying is that there is NEVER such thing as a good very uniform, objective application of the rule. Any rule always has with it a fuzzy boundary. Those border-line cases will NEVER be able to be treated in a fair UNLESS they're considered on a case-by-case basis.
That's the issue. Most cases that are brought to the NCAA permit a very uniform and objective application of the rule ... and that is because they're not border-line cases. It's only the border-line cases that really require the case-by-case treatment.
For example, Iowa could petition for Duzey to get a medical hardship waiver. However, the committee would be able to immediately apply the rules - and the decision would be an easily made, objective one. And, sadly for Duzey, it would not be in his favor.
And my response would be that Jake is a great Hawkeye, great talent, etc., but that it's unfortunate he doesn't meet criteria for a hardship waiver. And we move on.
We just disagree, and that's OK. My response would be that there will always be cases that are more borderline but that, at some point, you have to have a limit to what's permitted. As soon as you start considering the borderline cases individually, you introduce inconsistency and unfairness. Yes, some borderline cases will be denied. That's unfortunate, but it's still best, in the interest of fairness to all. For that matter, there really should be no such thing as a borderline case. Under a clear, consistently applied system, you'd have your cases that qualify and your cases that don't. All would know the criteria, and those cases that meet them would qualify whereas those that don't meet the criteria would not. A bummer for some, but rules are there to be followed. If the rules, themselves, are found to be unfair, they should be revised, but the rules in place, IMO, should be applied uniformly.
Uniformity is rarely "fair." The notion of uniformity appeals to our sense of psychology ... however, it is behind countless poorly written laws.
When engineers design engineering controls, the objective is to design a regulative measure that will robustly achieve a prescribed performance objective. The idea behind any law and rule and their enforcement is no different. How often do you suppose robust, high performing control designs implement uniform controls?
I get what you are both saying, however; comparing those two examples to Ott is apples to oranges. Both Gurley and McGahee were athletic freaks that were "locks" to be drafted very high. Ott has worked his ass off to be able to get the opportunity to even be in consideration and through this injury will probably not have the opportunity to get drafted like those two....not exactly the same situation
I don't want to give the impression that I favor central planning in any way; to the contrary, I very much favor respect for individual rights and freedoms, decentralization of authority, individual responsibility, etc. That said, where determinations such as eligibility for a medical hardship are concerned, I maintain that the best system would be to have simple, straightforward rules and follow them. In this case, I think simplicity allows for fair application, whereas the more exceptions are made, the less fair, predictable, and efficient the system becomes.
Latest posts
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
