I’m not confused. And I love the way you guys just say wrong without doing any research! You guys can eat your your shoes.
Haarms had some issues and would have lost one year of eligibility if he had gone to that prep school. So he entered Purdue mid season. By NCAA rules, Haarms could have played that second semester at Purdue. But Painter decided for him to red shirt that semester . I repeat, Haarms could have played! There were no ncaa rules preventing him from playing after he enrolled at Purdue. But Painter didn’t feel he was ready. So he redshirted him.
In the tourney, a player was injured. Painter could have activated and played Haarms. But in doing so, Haarms would have lost his red shirt year! But there were no ncaa rules preventing painter from playing Haarms. If you took the time to look in the archives of this forum you will see it was discussed as a possibility.
If it did happen Haarms would have lost a year of eligibility and byu would have been upset.
A player was injured. Painter refused to activate Haarms and Purdue lost. those are all facts!
I laugh at you people who just say wrong and don’t even read your own previous posts. You have a memory of a walnut eaten by a chipmunk.
The facts remain. Haarms could have played that second semester when he first arrived. He was actually practicing with the team. He knew the plays. But Painter decided to keep his 4 years of eligibility in tack.
The same will be true for Jacobson. painter could bring him back and play him in the tourney. But he won’t.