McCall definitely not red-shirting

burky247 said:
I guess my understanding of "medical redshirts" is that you have to show quite a bit of proof that a player wasn't able to perform at any level because of an injury(this is how it's been described to me by a player who was trying to receive one at least). If McCall is practicing, there is no way he's going to be given a hardship waiver. Unless you'r going to fake test results or have doctors lie through their teeth, being unable to play for 4 or 5 games isn't going to allow you a hardship waiver.

Just because the staff decides not to play him doesn't guarantee anything. If he is cleared to play by the doctors, and doesn't play, the NC2A will just assume that was a coaching decision and not a medical one. This is why quite a few athletes get rejected when they try and file hardship waivers.
Click to expand...
I think this is a very accurate statement, and why we're going to see him on the field this year.
 
burky247 said:
Just because the staff decides not to play him doesn't guarantee anything. If he is cleared to play by the doctors, and doesn't play, the NC2A will just assume that was a coaching decision and not a medical one. This is why quite a few athletes get rejected when they try and file hardship waivers.
Click to expand...

The number one obstacle to a player getting a medical hardship is that most players have taken a freshman red-shirt year for non-medical reasons. When their eligibility is up and the medical waiver is applied for the NCAA will consider that freshman season they sat out as a participation opportunity "within his or the institution's control".
 
1hawkeye1 said:
That is some incredibly fast healing. Amazing.
Hope we don't rush him back too soon.
Excited to see him again, though, he was really dynamic when carrying the ball.
Click to expand...


If all he had was a fracture and not some ligamentous damage 6 weeks is the norm for a bone to heal. If he had ligamentous damage as well he would most certainly be done for the year. Ligaments and tendons heal MUCH slower than does bone due to the blood supply. So it's not really "incredibly fast healing" just normal. His injury did look worse than just a "fracture" but apparently not.
 
USBHawk said:
That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

They would have to apply for the hardship waiver first ... but, just as long as they had the documentation suggesting that his ankle wasn't at a point where he could play at RB ... then I don't see there being much in their application that would undermine his chances of getting the waiver.

It's not like he's applying for a 6th year or anything.
 
After watching a few interviews from some players, I get the impression that he's all the way back. Deandre Johnson says he can definitely play and wants to play. Coker says he's running like the regular McCall and doesn't even look like he was hurt. Ferentz always leaves it up to the player and it sounds like he wants to get back in there.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
Granted, it was brief. But he hit the hole with a lot more quickness and purpose than Coker. That was plain to see.
You give him the same holes as Coker, and he'll get at least as much yardage.
Click to expand...

Remember, Coker was dinged up. Game 7 Coker hit the hole with a lot more quickness and purpose than Game 1 Coker.

That said, I'm glad to have McCall back.
 
homerHAWKeye777 said:
They would have to apply for the hardship waiver first ... but, just as long as they had the documentation suggesting that his ankle wasn't at a point where he could play at RB ... then I don't see there being much in their application that would undermine his chances of getting the waiver.

It's not like he's applying for a 6th year or anything.
Click to expand...

But they don't have that documentation...that is my point. Contrary to what goods10 stated, the staff DOES NOT have unilateral decision making ability. What if McCall only severely rolled his ankle and that kept him out for 2 weeks? They can't at that point just say "he's not cleared" in the hope of retaining his year of eligibility. If that were the case, you'd see guys sitting out with all sorts of maladies after the first 2 or 3 games of the season. The staff must supply contemporaneous documentation from the point of the injury all the way through the end of the season in order to make a case for the waiver. Our docs simply saying "he can't go" is not enough.
 
Duff is absolutely correct. McCall will play. Assuming the weather is good on Saturday I expect to see him. If it is rainy or really cold, he may not play this week. But he will definately see the field this week or next. Kirk would not say he is getting up to speed if he did not intend on playing him in the very near future.
Mark it down, you will see McCall this week or next.
This whole medical hardship thing needs to stop, it does not matter, McCall will be playing in the next week or two. So the argument will be moot.
 
McCall should play this week to get his feet wet before we play better competition the next two weeks, there is no reason to doubt that he will be playing again this year.

I have seen mention that Coker has played better in the last couple weeks. Granted we have played lackluster defenses the last couple of weeks but I think Brad Rodgers has been the key to his improvement. His ability to get to his blocking responsibility quicker has made the holes wider and the lanes have been sustained longer with his overall ability to stay on the block. Just thought I'd give our fullback some love
 
It's alright to be excited that McCall will be back. A freshman RB that they put into the game in place of a proven starter in the first half of the first game says something about his ability. Notice that the only other time you see a RB that isn't Coker is in the 4th quarter of a game that's already been sewed up. He was also Iowa's second leading rusher after playing a quarter or so of football.

Make light of the fact that it was Tennessee Tech, but if he weren't injured the rest of that game most likely belonged to him. He showed strengths in the same conditions against the same opponent where a certain starting RB showed struggles.
 
so so good to have him back. He was very quick to the holes in the game he played. Would love to see him smoke Nebraska, then have Coker pound them.
 
for what it's worth - the criteria/definition of a medical redshirt:

1. player must have documentation of injury that prevents ability to play.
2. Must have occurred in first half of season.
3. Must not have participated in more than 30% of games in that season.
4. Must not have participated in any games in last half of season.
5. Must have at least one year of eligibility left. (unlike a medical exemption which is a different application to NCAA)
5. Player can be determined 'medically ready/cleared', but not 'physically ready' to play in games. (Physically ready is determined by staff).

This information comes first hand from an AD for a D1 school who, needless to say, has particular insight on the topic (happens to be my brother-in-law).

In other words, McCall can practice but if he takes one snap in game action from here on out, he loses this year and is not eligible for a medical redshirt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top