'19 CA ATH/WR Horace "Bru" McCoy (Tennessee commit)

[VolFreakJosh]

Love how the NCAA rules don’t apply to anyone else except Tennessee.

Saban would have cried to Sankey to get this guy eligible if he signed there.

 

[volbeast33]

I find it hard to believe that he will be eligible.

I find it hard to believe that he is going to be ineligible.

 

[VolGee4]

I find it hard to believe that he is going to be ineligible.

I do, too. He has been out of football for a year, and it appears the new proposal will be to allow unlimited transfers.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

Doesn't look good for the home team here.

When did he EMPLOY the exemption and play a season without sitting out the normal year? Not when he went from USC to TX and not when he returned to USC. So where is his ONE TIME?

 

[Orange_Crush]

When did he EMPLOY the exemption and play a season without sitting out the normal year? Not when he went from USC to TX and not when he returned to USC. So where is his ONE TIME?

Is that how the exemption rule is written? Or is it written to say that the exemption exists for someone who hasn't transferred before?

"In order to meet the criteria for the one-time exception, the student athlete: Must not have tranferred previously from a 4 year institution..."

 

[volbeast33]

I do, too. He has been out of football for a year, and it appears the new proposal will be to allow unlimited transfers.

He wasn’t even allowed on campus and taken off the football roster…. As long as there is not something that we don’t know about…. He should be eligible, imo.

 

[MarcoVol]

He wasn’t even allowed on campus and taken off the football roster…. As long as there is not something that we don’t know about…. He should be eligible, imo.

1x transfer only applies if you haven’t transferred before according to the rules. I’m sure UT compliance dept has their own research on how to figure it out, but that’s what the rule says.

 

[volbeast33]

1x transfer only applies if you haven’t transferred before according to the rules. I’m sure UT compliance dept has their own research on how to figure it out, but that’s what the rule says.

He didn’t play last season… he was kicked off campus and removed from the football roster….. he has not been on the USC football roster in more than a year…. I don’t see how they can make him ineligible… obviously…. Tenn thought he would be eligible and AP said he should be eligible…. It might be different if he had been a USC football player last year.

 

[PruittEra]

Doesn't look good for the home team here.

Imo the wording of the second point kinda looks good. He was removed by usc so that would seem to constitute a discontinuation of a scholarship.
It may not be but that's how I'd see it.

 

[Vols2DaWall]

I don’t think UT takes him if they didn’t expect him to be eligible. I think they are just crossing all the Ts and dotting all the Is

 

[Orange_Crush]

He didn’t play last season… he was kicked off campus and removed from the football roster….. he has not been on the USC football roster in more than a year…. I don’t see how they can make him ineligible… obviously…. Tenn thought he would be eligible and AP said he should be eligible…. It might be different if he had been a USC football player last year.

Didn't he transfer from USC to to_UT and back to USC. If that's the case, I don't see how that could qualify as "hasn't transferred before". But I hope to be wrong and that UT can get him on the field this year.

Edited for spelling.

 

[volbeast33]

Didn'tyt he transfer from USC to to_UT and back to USC. If that's the case, I don't see how that could qualify as "hasn't transferred before". But I hope to be wrong and that UT can get him on the field this year.

I don’t think it has anything to do with transferring before…. USC removed him from the roster all of last season…. He has not played/practiced in over a year.

 

[Pridedad]

Didn'tyt he transfer from USC to to_UT and back to USC. If that's the case, I don't see how that could qualify as "hasn't transferred before". But I hope to be wrong and that UT can get him on the field this year.

That all happened before the one time free transfer went into place. That transfer does not count.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That all happened before the one time free transfer went into place. That transfer does not count.

We hope...?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don’t think it has anything to do with transferring before…. USC removed him from the roster all of last season…. He has not played/practiced in over a year.

I could see this.

Transfer b/c of loss of scholarship.

Also, he's already sat a year. They want to penalize him more than a year?

Correct?

 

[volbeast33]

I could see this.

Transfer b/c of loss of scholarship.

Also, he's already sat a year. They want to penalize him more than a year?

Correct?

Since he has been out over a year…. He should able to be eligible is the way I have always seen it done… more of a formality.

 

[mrmax86]

Personally I think UT can work around a WR better than they could Young last fall. Could be wrong.

PS- Milton's overthrows are essentially what cost UT the Pitt game.

I'd like to request a "double like" button for this, @Freak

 

[Devo182]

Doesn't look good for the home team here.

August 3rd would change everything.

I'd also think he'd have a good waiver argument. He was in a lawsuit with USC at one point. Could be basis for a poor, distracting environment.

 

[Devo182]

I do, too. He has been out of football for a year, and it appears the new proposal will be to allow unlimited transfers.

Being out of football for a year has no bearing. It's not like, "oh you took a redshirt" here's a free transfer. It's very very simply "have you transferred before?" Yes or No.

If you're referring to the "Year in Residency" rule, it applies to the current school. The entire purpose of it is/was to help players get accomodated academically. Their own research showed transfers struggled and got behind academically.

 

[Devo182]

That all happened before the one time free transfer went into place. That transfer does not count.

If that were the case, then there would be zero issue here. Nothing in what the NCAA has said mentions a cutoff date or essentially a 2nd transfer. That's why there is an issue.

I still think Aug 3rd could solve this, if what they said is accurate.

 

[walkenvol]

Being out of football for a year has no bearing. It's not like, "oh you took a redshirt" here's a free transfer. It's very very simply "have you transferred before?" Yes or No.

If you're referring to the "Year in Residency" rule, it applies to the current school. The entire purpose of it is/was to help players get accomodated academically. Their own research showed transfers struggled and got behind academically.

Maybe back in 1952. Every statistic I’ve seen shows athletes have a better gpa and graduation rate compared to all other students. The transfer sit out rule also only applies to football and basketball. Guess that means all other sports don’t put a strain on academics? The truth is the sit out a season rule is to discourage athletes from transferring and nothing more.

 

[Devo182]

Maybe back in 1952. Every statistic I’ve seen shows athletes have a better gpa and graduation rate compared to all other students. The transfer sit out rule also only applies to football and basketball. Guess that means all other sports don’t put a strain on academics? The truth is the sit out a season rule is to discourage athletes from transferring and nothing more.

No, I wasn't saying athletes had worse GPAs than regular students.

I meant transfer SAs struggled their first year post-transfer vs not transferring. In fact, at one point they were close to simply making a GPA cutoff point, but there were calls of racism because of discrepanies across races within the research data. So it never happened.

And yes, player control is likely a bigger reason. I'm just talking the NCAA's actual argument and why it applies to the current school and sitting out 1 year previously hasn't played a role in how these are viewed.

 

[butchna]

If that were the case, then there would be zero issue here. Nothing in what the NCAA has said mentions a cutoff date or essentially a 2nd transfer. That's why there is an issue.

I still think Aug 3rd could solve this, if what they said is accurate.

He was eligible to play at USC but redshirted AFTER two technical transfers. If even one of them counted that wouldn’t have been the case. I don’t think it’s going to require an Aug 3 to save this situation.

 

[Ten_Titans]

That all happened before the one time free transfer went into place. That transfer does not count.

I don't even see how the one time transfer rule factors in.

You can transfer more than once. You just have to sit a year. He sat last year, so..?

He wasn't enrolled and didn't play a game. So yeah. I don't understand.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Is anyone else completely confused about this situation?