AB -- Quick question -- When Maddy decided to redshirt, I know he was close to the number of games played as a % of the season. Was that assuming we would make a bowl?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Bowl or no bowl, the number of games he could have played in max to qualify for a medical waiver is 4. 30% of 12 is 3.6, rounds to 4. 30% of 13 is 3.9, rounds to 4. I believe that everything rounds up to the NCAA too, so if you go to the conference championship game and your team plays 14 games, or 15 games if you make it to the playoff finals, you would then have 5 games since it's 4.2 and 4.5 games as 30% for each scenario respectively.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Only scheduled or completed competition (including exempted events
but excluding scrimmages and exhibition contests identified as such in
the legislation) against outside participants during the playing season
that concludes with the NCAA championship, or, if so designated,
during the official NCAA championship playing season in that sport
(e.g., spring baseball, fall soccer), shall be countable under this
limitation in calculating both the number of contests or dates of
competition in which the student-athlete has participated and the
number of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition
during that season in the sport.
It doesn't include bowl games. Not sure about conference championship.
________________________________________
From: [HorseOnATreadmill]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:41 AM
To: Mandel, Stewart - Sports Illustrated
Subject: Mailbag: Stewart Mandel
Hi Stewart,
A question about eligibility, raised in my mind by the DJ Coles injury (VT, WR):
The rule appears to state that if a player plays in less than 30 percent of the season, they can apply for a medical hardship waiver.
But 30 percent of a season is not measured equally for all teams.
In a regular 12-game season, 30% = 3.6 games, meaning the player could play in a maximum of three games and apply for the waiver.
But in a 14-game season (which would include a conference championship game and a bowl game), 30% = 4.2 games, meaning the player would be able to play in four games and apply for the waiver.
Am I reading this rule incorrectly? Does this mean an injured player on a good (read: division-winning) team has a better chance of getting a medical hardship waiver than an injured player on a bad team? Or is this rule measured by regular-season games only?
Thanks
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
So presumably, it's the first four. Or you could take a kid who is redshirting right now and play him the last four games of the year and it wouldn't cost us his redshirt.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
After the lull, I'm starting to get cranked up again. I'm ready for some Marshawn/Hansen roadgrading to start the VT train back on the on track. I can't think of a better place to restore order to the universe than with a physical beat down of Duke.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
im sad to say i think this will be joel calebs last year as a hokie. looks like hes falling completely out of the running backs rotation. wish him the best, would love to see him work his way back on the field here i know he has the tallent i just dont think its going to happen.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I have no evidence to back this up, but it seems like sometimes players who are recruited out of high school as "athletes" without a specific position seem to have a little more trouble sticking. Certainly some have had success, but it makes me wonder if there is a benefit to guys who spend high school concentrated on one position?
"Athletes" from Rivals since 2010:
2014
Travon McMillian
Raymond Minor
Tabyus Taylor
2013
Cequan Jefferson
Deon Newsome
Carlis Parker
David Prince
Daniel Reid
2012
Joel Caleb
Brendan Motley
Chris Hall
2011
Demitri Knowles
James Farrow
2010
Dominique Patterson
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Some guys (Davis and Coles come to mind) eventually developed into good wideouts, but they essentially wasted 2-3 years of eligibility learning the position before they could contribute. Contrast them to Coale or Boykin, who were both pretty much ready to go on day 1 and just got better with experience.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yeah. Good point there.
Getting coached in a particular position in HS would seem to give them a leg up.
I wonder if it's a lack of commitment or focus that might be an indicator that can be used as a predictor or if it's guys that get discouraged?
Maybe a thing to watch for but take into account a small H.S. where some guys might have to gt moved around to accommodate need?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Might not be a lack of commitment but there is definitely red flags there. When I see the Athlete label sometimes it makes me think that scouts think he's got talent, but they have absolutely no idea where that talent can be applied, or that the talent really doesn't fit in any of the standard positions. And most of the time, when I see Athletes come in, they have to spend so much time learning the positions they're trying to play that, by the time they've got a full grasp on things, their eligibility is about to dry up or they've long since been passed on the depth chart by additional recruits in later years.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Which makes one really wonder why we spend time recruiting a player without knowing where we'll slot him. I understand being torn between a couple of positions, but the 'Athlete' label goes beyond that. It's one thing to recruit a guy as a TE & play him as a QB. It's entirely another to say from the beginning that you have no idea where to position him. Not to mention it is a disservice to the player.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Usually the "Athlete" label is for a kid who has played all over and has shown skills at RB, WR, QB, corner and safety. Also, a lot of coaches will put their best athlete at QB (because who better to touch the ball every play?) even though he may not have the arm or QB skills to play the position at the next level, despite possessing elite athleticism.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying. These kids have shown skills everywhere, but haven't shown excellence anywhere. I've seen kids who have played multiple positions in high school, but are recruited specifically for one spot in college. There's a huge risk/reward for Athletes coming out of high school, because for every kid that hits, there are multiple that miss because their skills just don't translate, or it takes too much time to get them into the system.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
You're 100% correct. You may notice that the guys who we recruited to play receiver and are actually contributing (Ford, Phillips) weren't just great athletes in high school, but very good at playing the WR position. It's one of the reasons I'm so happy with A-Mo joining the staff: he came in and decided he didn't want a bunch of high school QBs running around trying to learn a whole new position on the college level. Now, we're seeing some excellent receivers who polished their craft in high school with the position being supplemented by great athletes who might not have as good of a grasp on the position (such as Parker or Newsome). THAT'S how you're supposed to recruit the position at this level.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
That is kind of what I was thinking. Cam Phillips and Isaiah Ford aren't exactly imposing physical specimens, (understandably, they are 18 years old still). The reason they have excelled this season is their route running, great hands, and ability to block downfield all skills that they presumably learned by spending their high school careers focused on being wide receivers.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Leg up for making that pertinent point, Oceanfront. It seems pretty obvious that when a player is recruited & classified as 'athlete', then the coaches don't really know what they want to do with him from the beginning. They figure he must be good somewhere because he's so athletic - forgive the cliche - but they don't have anywhere to peg him. If they did, they'd label him a TE, OL, WR, or whatever.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This is the most baffling decision in a sea of baffling decisions...why would Wright be used over Caleb?? Caleb has looked at least competent, while Wright hasn't even been on the team.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Nobody in the media or otherwise has bothered to ask our RB coach why Wright's redshirt was burned so pointlessly so late in the season. Especially when far more talented options were available and were also used. It's just one of many, many concerns about the team that people don't like hearing mentioned.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
From my understanding, Wright was, for all intents and purposes, off the team.
Convincing him to come back to provide depth, with the impact on his studies and his potential to find another team next year, might just have required a promise to see the field for his effort.
That said, I agree that Caleb has more upside than any other healthy body behind Juice, so I am baffled why he's not getting more touches.
I can't really argue much with the position changes Caleb has gone through. I think if everyone had it all to do over again, they would have put him on D from the get-go.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
You're looking at it the wrong way. The question should be...what is there to gained by redshirting Wright -- both for the player and the team?
If he redshirted this year, he would be a r-sophmore next yr, yet clearly behind a junior (Edmunds) and two other sophmores (Williiams and McKenzie - who could get redshirted) -- and because he wouldn't have seen the field since 2012 -- most likely for the next two years. So at best he would be fighting for the #4 slot and reps with a more experienced senior (Coleman) and junior (Caleb). AND with two equally inexperienced redshirt frosh (Reid - who has similar size to Wright - and McMillian) coming in behind him.
If he doesn't redshirt, VT can play a second big back in 2014 that it desperately needs in the lineup due to the inability of the OL to push the pile. And for Wright, he gets what could likely be his one and only chance to show what he can do on the field before he gets buried on the depth chart as the odd man out.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Jerome Wright's redshirt was burned because he isn't the RB of the future, and he was desperately needed. I guess their logic was that he won't stick around long enough for the burned redshirt to matter.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I was thinking along the same lines but that he was not interested in redshirting, he was interested in playing. I suspect he wasn't planning on being here long enough to use the last year of eligibility if he redshirted.
We needed a RB. He wanted to play.
Desire, let me introduce you to need.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
With absolutely no information to back this up, I have been assuming Wright is transferring at seasons end and will have to sit out next year regardless. So it would make sense to play this year and just redshirt next year since he won't be able to play IF he transfers. Again I have absolutely no information to back this up, just my two cents on the situation.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
A little bit of video from Tuesday night too:
http://www.roanoke.com/sports/columns_and_blogs/blogs/andy_bitter_virgin...
AB -- Quick question -- When Maddy decided to redshirt, I know he was close to the number of games played as a % of the season. Was that assuming we would make a bowl?
Bowl or no bowl, the number of games he could have played in max to qualify for a medical waiver is 4. 30% of 12 is 3.6, rounds to 4. 30% of 13 is 3.9, rounds to 4. I believe that everything rounds up to the NCAA too, so if you go to the conference championship game and your team plays 14 games, or 15 games if you make it to the playoff finals, you would then have 5 games since it's 4.2 and 4.5 games as 30% for each scenario respectively.
This is correct.
Are you sure? I asked this question of Stewart Mandel at one point and he surprisingly answered, and said that it only counted regular season games.
I'm hoping he wasn't correct
This is from the Michigan State Compliance office
https://www.msu.edu/~msuncaa/Medical%20Hardship%20Waivers.pdf
I'm still looking for the NCAA bylaw wording.
Glad to hear it. Here was the email exchange:
So presumably, it's the first four. Or you could take a kid who is redshirting right now and play him the last four games of the year and it wouldn't cost us his redshirt.
Can't play any games in the second half of the season. Also, you need a legitimate injury with some medical documentation to back it up.
After the lull, I'm starting to get cranked up again. I'm ready for some Marshawn/Hansen roadgrading to start the VT train back on the on track. I can't think of a better place to restore order to the universe than with a physical beat down of Duke.
im sad to say i think this will be joel calebs last year as a hokie. looks like hes falling completely out of the running backs rotation. wish him the best, would love to see him work his way back on the field here i know he has the tallent i just dont think its going to happen.
This would be very disappointing, but not very surprising.
I have no evidence to back this up, but it seems like sometimes players who are recruited out of high school as "athletes" without a specific position seem to have a little more trouble sticking. Certainly some have had success, but it makes me wonder if there is a benefit to guys who spend high school concentrated on one position?
"Athletes" from Rivals since 2010:
2014
Travon McMillian
Raymond Minor
Tabyus Taylor
2013
Cequan Jefferson
Deon Newsome
Carlis Parker
David Prince
Daniel Reid
2012
Joel Caleb
Brendan Motley
Chris Hall
2011
Demitri Knowles
James Farrow
2010
Dominique Patterson
Interesting point.
Overall I think you might be correct but then there are others that have done very well.
Any idea how many have been scholarships or preferred walkons?
Some guys (Davis and Coles come to mind) eventually developed into good wideouts, but they essentially wasted 2-3 years of eligibility learning the position before they could contribute. Contrast them to Coale or Boykin, who were both pretty much ready to go on day 1 and just got better with experience.
Yeah. Good point there.
Getting coached in a particular position in HS would seem to give them a leg up.
I wonder if it's a lack of commitment or focus that might be an indicator that can be used as a predictor or if it's guys that get discouraged?
Maybe a thing to watch for but take into account a small H.S. where some guys might have to gt moved around to accommodate need?
Might not be a lack of commitment but there is definitely red flags there. When I see the Athlete label sometimes it makes me think that scouts think he's got talent, but they have absolutely no idea where that talent can be applied, or that the talent really doesn't fit in any of the standard positions. And most of the time, when I see Athletes come in, they have to spend so much time learning the positions they're trying to play that, by the time they've got a full grasp on things, their eligibility is about to dry up or they've long since been passed on the depth chart by additional recruits in later years.
Which makes one really wonder why we spend time recruiting a player without knowing where we'll slot him. I understand being torn between a couple of positions, but the 'Athlete' label goes beyond that. It's one thing to recruit a guy as a TE & play him as a QB. It's entirely another to say from the beginning that you have no idea where to position him. Not to mention it is a disservice to the player.
Usually the "Athlete" label is for a kid who has played all over and has shown skills at RB, WR, QB, corner and safety. Also, a lot of coaches will put their best athlete at QB (because who better to touch the ball every play?) even though he may not have the arm or QB skills to play the position at the next level, despite possessing elite athleticism.
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying. These kids have shown skills everywhere, but haven't shown excellence anywhere. I've seen kids who have played multiple positions in high school, but are recruited specifically for one spot in college. There's a huge risk/reward for Athletes coming out of high school, because for every kid that hits, there are multiple that miss because their skills just don't translate, or it takes too much time to get them into the system.
You're 100% correct. You may notice that the guys who we recruited to play receiver and are actually contributing (Ford, Phillips) weren't just great athletes in high school, but very good at playing the WR position. It's one of the reasons I'm so happy with A-Mo joining the staff: he came in and decided he didn't want a bunch of high school QBs running around trying to learn a whole new position on the college level. Now, we're seeing some excellent receivers who polished their craft in high school with the position being supplemented by great athletes who might not have as good of a grasp on the position (such as Parker or Newsome). THAT'S how you're supposed to recruit the position at this level.
That is kind of what I was thinking. Cam Phillips and Isaiah Ford aren't exactly imposing physical specimens, (understandably, they are 18 years old still). The reason they have excelled this season is their route running, great hands, and ability to block downfield all skills that they presumably learned by spending their high school careers focused on being wide receivers.
Leg up for making that pertinent point, Oceanfront. It seems pretty obvious that when a player is recruited & classified as 'athlete', then the coaches don't really know what they want to do with him from the beginning. They figure he must be good somewhere because he's so athletic - forgive the cliche - but they don't have anywhere to peg him. If they did, they'd label him a TE, OL, WR, or whatever.
This is the most baffling decision in a sea of baffling decisions...why would Wright be used over Caleb?? Caleb has looked at least competent, while Wright hasn't even been on the team.
Especially when you had to burn a redshirt in the last game of October to do it
Absolutely baffling decision all around. Really is no explanation I can stomach to accept that one.
Nobody in the media or otherwise has bothered to ask our RB coach why Wright's redshirt was burned so pointlessly so late in the season. Especially when far more talented options were available and were also used. It's just one of many, many concerns about the team that people don't like hearing mentioned.
You saw the Pitt game, right?
From my understanding, Wright was, for all intents and purposes, off the team.
Convincing him to come back to provide depth, with the impact on his studies and his potential to find another team next year, might just have required a promise to see the field for his effort.
That said, I agree that Caleb has more upside than any other healthy body behind Juice, so I am baffled why he's not getting more touches.
I can't really argue much with the position changes Caleb has gone through. I think if everyone had it all to do over again, they would have put him on D from the get-go.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The question should be...what is there to gained by redshirting Wright -- both for the player and the team?
If he redshirted this year, he would be a r-sophmore next yr, yet clearly behind a junior (Edmunds) and two other sophmores (Williiams and McKenzie - who could get redshirted) -- and because he wouldn't have seen the field since 2012 -- most likely for the next two years. So at best he would be fighting for the #4 slot and reps with a more experienced senior (Coleman) and junior (Caleb). AND with two equally inexperienced redshirt frosh (Reid - who has similar size to Wright - and McMillian) coming in behind him.
If he doesn't redshirt, VT can play a second big back in 2014 that it desperately needs in the lineup due to the inability of the OL to push the pile. And for Wright, he gets what could likely be his one and only chance to show what he can do on the field before he gets buried on the depth chart as the odd man out.
Excellent thought.
So would you say he's...
I hope he is 100% and that he has a monster game.
Setting up the run will help the passing game immensely and give Brewer's arm a periodic break through the game.
Jerome Wright's redshirt was burned because he isn't the RB of the future, and he was desperately needed. I guess their logic was that he won't stick around long enough for the burned redshirt to matter.
I was thinking along the same lines but that he was not interested in redshirting, he was interested in playing. I suspect he wasn't planning on being here long enough to use the last year of eligibility if he redshirted.
We needed a RB. He wanted to play.
Desire, let me introduce you to need.
Need let me introduce you to 3 Wins that VT has to get.
With absolutely no information to back this up, I have been assuming Wright is transferring at seasons end and will have to sit out next year regardless. So it would make sense to play this year and just redshirt next year since he won't be able to play IF he transfers. Again I have absolutely no information to back this up, just my two cents on the situation.
"You know, some people go on the road recruiting," he said. "I just go over to the defensive line room."