Poll Results: Gardner’s redshirt

Poll Results: Gardner’s redshirt

September 7, 2010

A recent reader poll asked the question, “Should Devin Gardner’s redshirt have been burned for two snaps against UConn?”

62% of readers agreed with yours truly that Gardner should have remained on the bench.

37% of readers disagree and think Gardner should have played.


  1. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 10:48 AM

    Wasn't your poll question more than a bit premature? If Gardner ends up getting more snaps and meaningful playing time against other opponents (this seems probable against the likes of UMass and Bowling Green) the question becomes moot because his redshirt would have been burned anyways. Your question is relevant only if those two snaps against UConn end up being the ONLY snaps he takes all season.

  2. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 11:00 AM

    @ Anonymous

    There's a full discussion of the topic in the "Burning Devin Gardner's Redshirt a Bad Idea" post from a couple days ago. It's easier just to send you there than to rehash the entire argument.

  3. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 1:39 PM

    I agree with the other anonymous poster. This was a push poll. Of course you got 62% to agree with you when you characterize the redshirt as having been "burned" for "two plays against UConn" – especially after having just wrote an article about why "Burning Devin Gardner's Redshirt (is) a Bad Idea".

  4. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 1:48 PM

    @ Anonymous 9:39 a.m.

    The commonly used terminology for a freshman player getting PT is "burning his redshirt." There's no two ways about it.

    And he only played two plays against UConn.

    Of course any reader is going to know my take on the subject. But it's an anonymous poll and nobody has to agree with me. No matter how I worded the question, the fact that I just wrote an opinion piece on the topic should have been irrelevant to anyone who clicked VOTE.

  5. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 2:27 PM

    urgh. magnus i'm so upset the wording of you poll was totally unfair.

    i demand a revote.


  6. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 5:27 PM

    Correction, the commonly used terminology for a freshman player getting PT OVER THE COURSE OF A SEASON is "burning his redshirt."

    DG burned his redshirt AFTER one game not FOR one game.

    A good lesson is relearned here. Say something outrageously dumb and people will want to talk about it. Is the gardner RS post the most popular this blog has seen?

  7. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 5:44 PM

    @ Lankownia

    Whether Gardner plays 2 snaps or 200 snaps, his redshirt has been "burned." Your semantic argument is ridiculous.

  8. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 5:52 PM

    Of course, if Gardner plays 200 snaps, the suggestion that his redshirt was burned "for just two plays against UConn" is totally irrelevant and entirely misleading.

    Again, your poll was absurdly premature.

  9. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 5:56 PM

    @ Anonymous

    Good grief. It's just a poll.

    Even if I took out the words "for 2 snaps" and it just said "Should Devin Gardner's redshirt have been burned against UConn?" it wouldn't changed a damn thing.

    I could have waited until the end of the season to post the poll, but it's relevant right now. Stop whining. Do you really think anybody who responded to that poll was totally duped by the words I used?


    Come on.

  10. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 6:24 PM

    The comment above about "push polling" is accurate. Your results aren't surprising given how you asked the question. This isn't an argument about semantics its about logic. If Gardner burns his redshirt for 2 plays I'll be upset. I'm 99.9% sure that won't be the case though — he'll play much more than 2 plays.

    Even if you said "should the redshirt have been burned against UCONN" it would have been misleading. If you're going to get it right it should say "Should Gardner's reshirt have been burned this season?" Which is a legit question.

    Furthermore, you did much more than just ask an innocent opinion poll, you accused RR of putting his selfish interests (whatever those may be is unsaid) ahead of the the team.

  11. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 6:31 PM

    @ Lankownia

    I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

    The redshirt was burned against UConn. Yes, I could have worded it differently. It still would have meant the same thing.

    And NOWHERE in that question did I mention any selfish interests from Rodriguez. That comment is just absolutely off-the-wall.

    Thanks for reading and everything, but this is silly. This is the last time I'll comment on the issue.

  12. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 6:59 PM

    I was referring to this comment:

    "Rodriguez seemed to make this statement: "Doing things my way is bigger than the program." "

  13. Comments: 21383
    Sep 08, 2010 at 7:05 PM

    This is like arguing that Chad Henne burned his redshirt for one win against Miami (of Ohio). A meaningless 33 point blowout where Clayton Richard was available to play in. Henne's redshirt was burned against Miami, you could say.

    Regardless of how you want to view the appropriateness of the wording its, at best, beside the point, since there was more to 2004 than one game.

  14. Comments: 21383
    Sep 09, 2010 at 4:55 AM

    as i said on the other topic: ignore the contribution taht he will bring this year. theres another perfectly competent qb on the bench. putting DG in over tate does wat for the offense? i dont care if he'll "learn" the offense faster. he wont have another year to play which is the main point of him being there: to lead the offense as long as possible. not sit 2nd row behind denard.

  15. Comments: 21383
    Sep 09, 2010 at 3:38 PM

    anon, would you say the same thing about Denard in '09…or were his moderate contributions as a backup last year valuable lessons for his ascension in '10?

  16. Comments: 21383
    Sep 09, 2010 at 10:49 PM

    denard and tate compliment each other much more than denard and DG do. DG is a mix of tate and denard. and are u really expecting dg to take over for denard last year? if so, then you need to seriously rethink ur strategy. u recruit QBs to lead ur team for as long as possible, not hold down the fort for 1 year before someone else takes over and then someone else takes over for him. that offers 0 stability. to be honest, dg should redshirt next year if tate doesnt transfer because that extra year is that important.

    -horn(the last one was me i forgot to sign it)

  17. Comments: 21383
    Sep 10, 2010 at 5:34 PM


    I don't expect DG to overtake DR, but I didn't really expect DR to overtake TF either.

    Not sure you're right about complementary roles. I realize the pass/run dichotomy between the two sophs, but OTOH, I think Coach Rod wants to install one offensive package and, how to put it…, run with that. Some wrinkles for individual ability are fine but, does he wants to install two very different packages with many still-inexperienced players on the roster.

    I appreciate the value of a redshirt, and I too think playing DG is probably a mistake. That said, I think its far too early to judge if DG's redshirt was "blown".

    I think as fans we can have the right to be critical, but I disagree with personal attacks or accusations of putting self before the team that are sometimes thrown around. I realize whats appropriate is a matter of opinion, but thats what blogs and message boards are for, eh?

    Anyway, good discussion here.

You must belogged in to post a comment.