ADVERTISEMENT

Ott case moving on to NCAA

You can't just ask for a medical hardship, you have to prove it and make a strong case. Doctors complete just as much paper work than coaches or the player. The conference/NCAA will also review any medical tests or scans that were done, too, just to make sure the injury is indeed what kept them away from the field. As I mentioned before, these two injuries were pretty significant and the elbow injury probably would've been enough to get him another year, but he tried to play through it.
I don't know what level of proof is necessary. I know of cases where an ISU player, Keith Sims, was granted an additional year after suddenly developing "turf toe" early in the season. Not sure how many seasons Jess Settles played -- seemed like seven or eight, probably just six.

But there is more to it than simply "proving" an injury was serious enough to prevent the player from seeing action -- which in many cases would be hard to do. The NCAA gives the doctor/player the benefit of the doubt on that score -- as it must. However, the timing is an entirely different question.

Maybe Ott simply made a mistake by trying to come back instead of accepting the injury. Hell, the kid played through mid-season, for heaven's sake. You're arguing that he should be granted another year because he had an injury that kept him from playing -- but that clearly isn't the case, as he and his doctors thought he was still capable of playing, and he did, indeed, play.

Look at other examples. Naz Long is far from assured his petition will be granted, and his is a much more obvious case than Ott's (and falls well within the written criteria).

Virtually every football team has someone who is injured at mid-season and unable to play again. They virtually never get the year over.
 
I don't understand the attitude of some posters. Ott does not meet the criteria for being granted an additional year of eligibility. Period. The conference does not have the power to waive the requirement, but has the power to either deny the request, thus ending the matter, or granting permission to Iowa to ask the NCAA for a review. The conference has done the latter. So it is up to the NCAA to determine if the situation is so exceptional that it should waive the rules and give Ott another season.

I don't understand (1) why anybody thinks he is getting screwed, and (2) why he should be granted an exception by the NCAA.
As to your first contention that Ott doesn't meet the criteria, while it is true, it matters that it was his coach and trainers who are responsible for using Ott briefly in three games after his injury---twice after it was obvious even to the stands that in the first attempt he was so physically impaired he should not be playing. Yes, I realize Ott was not a child anymore---but he was a kid coping for the first time with a major injury, accepting the poor judgment of a veteran coach. If Ferentz cannot be sanctioned for it at least that is where the finger should be pointed. (And not just Ferentz, coaches routinely risk the future health of players, and invariably escape criticism.

As to your second paragraph, the broader perspective shows that, yes, he is getting screwed. If Ferentz hadn't tried go play him hurt, Ott would be and should be eligible because he wouldn't have exceeded the 30% limit. It is too much to expect the money-grubbing NCAA & university athletic programs to stop victimizing the kids for whom they are supposed to be responsible mentors. But there is no reason why the NCAA cannot quietly grant Ott & all the others who get abused by their athletic programs extended eligibility---but it would be nice if the grant was accompanied by censure of the veteran adults who created the problem.

Admittedly, this is the probably biased response of a lifelong passionate Iowa fan, alumni, contributor. Still, there is absolutely no doubt that Ferentz is a deservedly respected coach, one of the most responsible, decent, good citizens in the fetid mess of college athletics. Hhis stature is all the more reason why it needs to be emphasized that doing the usual thing is not doing the right thing..
 
Last edited:
As to your first contention that Ott doesn't meet the criteria, while it is true, it matters that it was his coach and trainers that are responsible for using Ott briefly in three games after his injury---twice after it was obvious even to the stands in the first attempt that he was so physically impaired he should not be playing.Yes, I realize Ott was not a child anymore---but he was a kid coping for the first time with a major injury, accepting the poor judgment of a veteran coach. If Ferentz cannot be sanctioned for it at least that is where the finger should be pointed. (And not just Ferentz, coaches routinely risk the future health of players, and invariably escape criticism.

As to your second paragraph, the broader perspective shows that, yes, he is getting screwed. If Ferentz hadn't tried go play him hurt, Ott would be and should be eligible because he wouldn't have exceeded the 30% limit. It is too much to expect the money-grubbing NCAA & university athletic programs to stop victimizing the kids for whom they are supposed to be responsible mentors. But there is no reason why the NCAA cannot quietly grant Ott & all the others who get abused by their athletic programs extended eligibility---but it would be nice if the grant was accompanied by censure of the veteran adults who created the problem.

Admittedly, this is the probably biased response of a lifelong passionate Iowa fan, alumni, contributor. Still, there is absolutely no doubt that Ferentz is a deservedly respected coach, one of the most responsible, decent,
caring men and good citizens in the fetid mess of college athletics. But his stature is all the more reason why doing the usual thing is not doing the right thing needs to be said.
Hi, Tigger...

1. No, it doesn't matter that it was his coach and trainers.
2. I doubt very, very much that Ott was forced to play hurt. If anything, I'd guess it was the other way around.
3. Agree about Ferentz......which is yet another reason I don't think he was forcing anybody to play who shouldn't have been playing due to injury.
4. They mostly got away with rhabdogate; they aren't going to be censured for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: starbrown
As to your first contention that Ott doesn't meet the criteria, while it is true, it matters that it was his coach and trainers who are responsible for using Ott briefly in three games after his injury---twice after it was obvious even to the stands that in the first attempt he was so physically impaired he should not be playing. Yes, I realize Ott was not a child anymore---but he was a kid coping for the first time with a major injury, accepting the poor judgment of a veteran coach. If Ferentz cannot be sanctioned for it at least that is where the finger should be pointed. (And not just Ferentz, coaches routinely risk the future health of players, and invariably escape criticism.

As to your second paragraph, the broader perspective shows that, yes, he is getting screwed. If Ferentz hadn't tried go play him hurt, Ott would be and should be eligible because he wouldn't have exceeded the 30% limit. It is too much to expect the money-grubbing NCAA & university athletic programs to stop victimizing the kids for whom they are supposed to be responsible mentors. But there is no reason why the NCAA cannot quietly grant Ott & all the others who get abused by their athletic programs extended eligibility---but it would be nice if the grant was accompanied by censure of the veteran adults who created the problem.

Admittedly, this is the probably biased response of a lifelong passionate Iowa fan, alumni, contributor. Still, there is absolutely no doubt that Ferentz is a deservedly respected coach, one of the most responsible, decent, good citizens in the fetid mess of college athletics. Hhis stature is all the more reason why it needs to be emphasized that doing the usual thing is not doing the right thing..

This post is ridiculous. Censured? you are insane
 
How would you have an understanding of the process if you haven't researched it? just guesswork?
No. Basing it on news stories and comments from people who I thought should understand the process. I haven't gone to the NCAA or BiG sites and tried to find the wording of the relevant rule(s).
 
It really doesn't matter what the rules are or procedures to follow. The NCAA does whatever they want regarding eligibility anyways. Some get it who shouldn't and some don't when they should based on rules.
 
Why would the NCAA deny anyone? Isn't it free labor to them? I'm surprised they don't milk every kid down to the bone. Then again, there is a new crop every year in which to exploit. I think I answered my own question. Nevermind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kwik44
Should this somehow be ruled in favor of Ott getting a 5th year, I want to remind everybody of two things:

1) Most people who tear an ACL need at least a full year to recover. That probably means Drew would be less than 100% for most of the season. Now, we can argue around and around if a 60% Drew Ott is better than somebody else, or at least gives the team another body to rotate, etc.

2) Drew's been injured a lot in his Hawkeye career. While that could be a total coincidence, even if he is granted a 5th year and even if his ACL appears to be recovered, can we really expect he'll be on the field every game, especially when coupled with point #1 above?

The bottom line - don't expect him to get the 5th year, and if he does you probably shouldn't expect him to be wreaking havoc the whole season. Let's be realistic about this is all I'm saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: INXS83
The key for me is that he never redshirted. In reality Ott played less than 3 full seasons which is why his unique case is getting looked at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kwik44
Should this somehow be ruled in favor of Ott getting a 5th year, I want to remind everybody of two things:

1) Most people who tear an ACL need at least a full year to recover. That probably means Drew would be less than 100% for most of the season. Now, we can argue around and around if a 60% Drew Ott is better than somebody else, or at least gives the team another body to rotate, etc.

2) Drew's been injured a lot in his Hawkeye career. While that could be a total coincidence, even if he is granted a 5th year and even if his ACL appears to be recovered, can we really expect he'll be on the field every game, especially when coupled with point #1 above?

The bottom line - don't expect him to get the 5th year, and if he does you probably shouldn't expect him to be wreaking havoc the whole season. Let's be realistic about this is all I'm saying.

It all depends on the athlete and the work they put in to get back. Some are able to return faster than others. Peterson, Welker, Charles all returned pretty fast from ACL surgery and performed at a high level from the start of the season. There are others as well. But there also those who take a little longer to get back up to where they were before. If he can get to 100% by the one year mark that would still be really good. That would be half way through the season. We already know now that he said he is head of schedule in his recovery. I think it usually takes around 6 months before they are fully cleared. That would be what April or May?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepperman
Well, I hope so... a fully-healthy Drew Ott (that stays fully-healthy) would be a great thing to have on the field. Even a 70% Drew Ott would be good to rotate in and out.

It just seems like every athlete that tears an ACL comes back after a year claiming they are fine and ready to go, but then later on (another 6+ months) they say they actually weren't really 100% when they came back. But I see your point, individuals all recover and work at different rates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rondy
Well, I hope so... a fully-healthy Drew Ott (that stays fully-healthy) would be a great thing to have on the field. Even a 70% Drew Ott would be good to rotate in and out.

It just seems like every athlete that tears an ACL comes back after a year claiming they are fine and ready to go, but then later on (another 6+ months) they say they actually weren't really 100% when they came back. But I see your point, individuals all recover and work at different rates.
Yeah for all I know Ott is someone who might take longer to recover but even having him at 75% provides Iowa with I a good DE that could rotate with Hesse and Nelson
 
Should this somehow be ruled in favor of Ott getting a 5th year, I want to remind everybody of two things:

1) Most people who tear an ACL need at least a full year to recover. That probably means Drew would be less than 100% for most of the season. Now, we can argue around and around if a 60% Drew Ott is better than somebody else, or at least gives the team another body to rotate, etc.

2) Drew's been injured a lot in his Hawkeye career. While that could be a total coincidence, even if he is granted a 5th year and even if his ACL appears to be recovered, can we really expect he'll be on the field every game, especially when coupled with point #1 above?

The bottom line - don't expect him to get the 5th year, and if he does you probably shouldn't expect him to be wreaking havoc the whole season. Let's be realistic about this is all I'm saying.

Drew Ott at 60 or 75% would still be iowas best DE next year. Plus provides some well needed depth at the position.
 
Should this somehow be ruled in favor of Ott getting a 5th year, I want to remind everybody of two things:

1) Most people who tear an ACL need at least a full year to recover. That probably means Drew would be less than 100% for most of the season. Now, we can argue around and around if a 60% Drew Ott is better than somebody else, or at least gives the team another body to rotate, etc.

2) Drew's been injured a lot in his Hawkeye career. While that could be a total coincidence, even if he is granted a 5th year and even if his ACL appears to be recovered, can we really expect he'll be on the field every game, especially when coupled with point #1 above?

The bottom line - don't expect him to get the 5th year, and if he does you probably shouldn't expect him to be wreaking havoc the whole season. Let's be realistic about this is all I'm saying.
Injured twice his senior year doesn't quite fit the bill of "been injured a lot in his Iowa career"? He was hit by a car and still played 5 days later! He's not your average person! He'll be ready to play.
 
It still boggles my mind that they gave Chuck Long an extra year of eligibility after he played in the Rose Bowl as freshman. I never saw anything close to a reasonable explanation for that.

It was my understanding from back in the Long era that he was the beneficiary of lucky timing with the rule change. I don't think he was given an extra year.
 
It was my understanding from back in the Long era that he was the beneficiary of lucky timing with the rule change. I don't think he was given an extra year.
You are correct. Redshirt freshman used to be eligible to play in Bowl Games because they were exhibitions. Stats didn't count for career stats.
 
You are correct. Redshirt freshman used to be eligible to play in Bowl Games because they were exhibitions. Stats didn't count for career stats.

I cant remember exact rule change but Chuck also played 1-2 downs in the Northwestern game that year too, if I remember correctly. Nothing significant and he did get the extra year. Jonathon Hayes could have had extra year too but chose to go to NFL
 
I cant remember exact rule change but Chuck also played 1-2 downs in the Northwestern game that year too, if I remember correctly. Nothing significant and he did get the extra year. Jonathon Hayes could have had extra year too but chose to go to NFL

I believe that he got an extra year in that he got five years to play four as defined by the NCAA at that time. In other words, I think that at the time playing a couple of downs likely didn't count as playing the year, but I can't find an explanation of the old rule anywhere. I could be wrong. What I meant by saying he wasn't given an extra year is that there was no petition to the NCAA or Big 10 conference as far as I can recall. He was eligible for the fifth year based on the rules at the time.
 
This sucks all around. Don't care who you are a fan for, the NCAA blows and are screwing this kid.
 
Does anyone know of any kind of commitable time frame the NCAA has to make a decision? This is far past ridiculous.
 
Does anyone know of any kind of commitable time frame the NCAA has to make a decision? This is far past ridiculous.

I would also like to know this. How hard could it be. Just make a damn decision already.
 
http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2016/03/lsu_te_dillon_gordon_out.html

LSU TE Dillon Gordon appeal unlikely to be settled before spring practice ends

LSU coach Les Miles said there was nothing new on tight end Dillon Gordon's appeal for a fifth season of eligibility and that the matter likely won't be settled before the end of spring practice.

Gordon played in four games, not counting the cancelled season opener against McNeese State, because of a torn Achilles tendon. Miles said Gordon played no more than 40 plays overall in 2015, and is in good enough physical condition to practice in the spring.

"We do not know any more," Miles said at Pro Day Monday. "We certainly hope he gets another opportunity.

"Absolutely (he would be able to practice in the spring if he gets cleared by NCAA) but I don't know that we will see that information quickly enough," Miles said.

Gordon, who is from Edgard, La., and played prep ball at John Curtis, first injured his Achilles tendon in the first quarter against Auburn and sat out until the Florida game. He reinjured it on the second series against Florida and had surgery to repair it.

Gordon lettered his first three seasons at LSU. Because his senior season was mostly wiped out by the injury, he is eligible to appeal for another season. LSU and the NCAA have exchanged paperwork but no decision has been made.
 
I read in a pro day article that Ott will enter the draft if no decision is handed down prior. Has anyone seen anything from an official source on this?
 
Read somewhere that Barta thought most cases were decided by late March.
 
Now that basketball is over this may be the only victory or defeat we have to celebrate until Spring ball.
 
The key for me is that he never redshirted. In reality Ott played less than 3 full seasons which is why his unique case is getting looked at.

The key for everyone else not wearing gold and black glasses, is he CHOSE to redshirt, and CHOSE to play in games in a limited role while injured, when if he was hurt bad enough, he should have shut it down.

If you guys want to whine about anything, it should be about the staff playing an injured player, or Ott himself, for choosing to play injured, and choosing not to red shirt one of his seasons. If the NCAA would rule in his favor, it will start a shit storm from players who like Ott did not meet the criteria for a hardship waiver, and were ultimately denied.
 
The key for everyone else not wearing gold and black glasses, is he CHOSE to redshirt, and CHOSE to play in games in a limited role while injured, when if he was hurt bad enough, he should have shut it down.

If you guys want to whine about anything, it should be about the staff playing an injured player, or Ott himself, for choosing to play injured, and choosing not to red shirt one of his seasons. If the NCAA would rule in his favor, it will start a shit storm from players who like Ott did not meet the criteria for a hardship waiver, and were ultimately denied.

The only whining going on is the fact that it is taking too long to make a decision. They aren't splitting the atom here. This process shouldn't take that long.
 
The key for everyone else not wearing gold and black glasses, is he CHOSE to redshirt, and CHOSE to play in games in a limited role while injured, when if he was hurt bad enough, he should have shut it down.

If you guys want to whine about anything, it should be about the staff playing an injured player, or Ott himself, for choosing to play injured, and choosing not to red shirt one of his seasons. If the NCAA would rule in his favor, it will start a shit storm from players who like Ott did not meet the criteria for a hardship waiver, and were ultimately denied.

You are aware that other players besides Ott have already been given an extra year before this by the NCAA by playing above the certain percentages set forth already. Its not like he'd be the first one who ever got this. Why the NCAA goes case by case to look at all the particulars involved. Plus he didn't redshirt he is applying for a 5th year. But maybe if you took off your white and red blinders you wouldn't be so stupid to have already realized this. Such as this rule where this Washington RB is given chance to play a 7th year at SJSU.

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaa...l-enjoy-seventh-season-at-sjsu-160924818.html
 
Well, if Drew doesn't have an answer in the next 2 weeks he will be entering the draft. I think that's the safe decision and no one could possibly fault him for it.

Personally, I think he should probably have gotten another year. But that has risks, too.

I'd hate to be in his shoes. But at least he has announced what his plan is and will be fine either way I'm sure.
 
Kirk said he is still encouraged by some things but thinks it could be another 2 weeks before they hear anything
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT