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

[Devo182]

Is anyone else completely confused about this situation?

As to what? Think we knew it was going to happen (minus those folks that thought a waiver wasn't necessary and the new rule washed it out). Sit tight. Think we'll be fine.

And if not? Heupel is a master. Not going to ever be worried about WRs with him.

 

[Devo182]

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.

Hopefully not...but knowing the speed of the NCAA...I'd rather not try them either. They literally probably have 100 waivers in front of them this year...and will still take months to get to them. In one of their documents they considered them "low priority" 😑

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

As to what? Think we knew it was going to happen (minus those folks that thought a waiver wasn't necessary and the new rule washed it out). Sit tight. Think we'll be fine.

And if not? Heupel is a master. Not going to ever be worried about WRs with him.

I just haven’t really kept up with this. Is he eligible? Is he not? Can he play this year? Transfer rules.

 

[Pridedad]

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.

There was a screenshot of this very question being asked and answered.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

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.

Why the heck would being out of football for a year have no bearing? It has a bearing on whether or not you use up a year of eligibility why not whether you use up your one time exemption to play after a transfer without sitting out a year? How can use that exemption?

I found the following in an NCAA document....

Q2: What happens if a student-athlete does not satisfy the one-time transfer exception criteria but still decides to transfer?

A2: The student-athlete must attend full time and complete an academic year of residence at the new Division I school before being eligible for competition. Student-athletes should discuss additional transfer exceptions or eligibility options that may be available, depending on the specific transfer situation, with their campus compliance administraton.

I would say being removed from their roster before the first game would be specific enough to trigger action by the new school.

 

[walkenvol]

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.

Guess I wasn’t clear enough, the NCAA’s argument is a lie. Transfer athletes are more successful in the classroom than the regular student body. Plus, the rule only applies to revenue generating sports. Doesn’t it seem odd that a baseball player doesn’t have to miss a season but a football player does?

 

[GetEmVols]

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.

Yeah but this was a forced transfer. He was no longer allowed to play with USC because of the allegations that Bru eventually sued USC for having their facts wrong.

 

[De La Cloobs]

If only we were Alabama in this instance.

 

[Tennessee Golfer]

If only we were Alabama in this instance.

I never want to be Bama in any instance.

 

[peaygolf]

I never want to be Bama in any instance.

 

[PlanetVolunteer]

Yeah but this was a forced transfer. He was no longer allowed to play with USC because of the allegations that Bru eventually sued USC for having their facts wrong.

That's why they'd likely allow him to be eligible.

I mean he also sat out 2019. He's sat out enough.

 

[Tennessee Golfer]

Yes I couldn’t stand smelling myself.

 

[SugarCC]

 

[Ace]

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

I hope he is eligible.

 

[drvenner]

Bru man will end up being eligible imo, but Sankey was not a fan of UT taking him.

And we all know why. Sankey does not want Tennessee to be successful. A strong Tennessee causes Georgia and Bama both to have a harder path the the playoff.

 

[drvenner]

And that occurred BEFORE the transfer rule kicked in. Since when did rules become retroactive???

They only become retroactive if they hurt us. If making a rule retroactive would help us, it definitely does not apply.

 

[VolGee4]

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.

I think it’s very relevant. Maybe not a rule per se, but the NCAA has been more willing to offer waivers when these type things are part of the argument. As volbeast said, he apparently wasn’t even on USC’s roster. The NCAA isn’t going to make him sit a second consecutive year. Just allege a mental health issue or a bad environment, and they definitely will let him play.

 

[MarcoVol]

I think it’s very relevant. Maybe not a rule per se, but the NCAA has been more willing to offer waivers when these type things are part of the argument. As volbeast said, he apparently wasn’t even on USC’s roster. The NCAA isn’t going to make him sit a second consecutive year. Just allege a mental health issue or a bad environment, and they definitely will let him play.

Tough to just allege any ole issue when the reason is well documented that he was removed from the football team while being investigated for felony intimate partner violence.

 

[Devo182]

Why the heck would being out of football for a year have no bearing? It has a bearing on whether or not you use up a year of eligibility why not whether you use up your one time exemption to play after a transfer without sitting out a year? How can use that exemption?

I found the following in an NCAA document....

Q2: What happens if a student-athlete does not satisfy the one-time transfer exception criteria but still decides to transfer?

A2: The student-athlete must attend full time and complete an academic year of residence at the new Division I school before being eligible for competition. Student-athletes should discuss additional transfer exceptions or eligibility options that may be available, depending on the specific transfer situation, with their campus compliance administraton.

I would say being removed from their roster before the first game would be specific enough to trigger action by the new school.

Yes, it says you must sit one year. OF COURSE the waiver option is there. But being out a year previously is not a transfer "exception". That would be in the case where the prior school ended the kid's academic area of study or something else.

No doubt you could throw that in the waiver case as a general argument. Sure. But it's not a general guideline they follow as to their reasoning, as precedence.

Fwiw he had some mystery illness that year is what I read. It lingered through the early part of the season, until finally it was decided he just wouldn't play that year. Tifwiw

Like I've mentioned before, I think he has causes for receiving a waiver. Just don't see sitting out in the past as one of them, especially when he's apparently transferred multiple times. Not sure how kindly they would view a kid on his third move. But he has good reasons to fall back on here imo. And August 3rd may make it all completely moot anyway. Clearly UT was confident in something it would seem.

 

[MarcoVol]

Yes, it says you must sit one year. OF COURSE the waiver option is there. But being out a year previously is not a transfer "exception". That would be in the case where the prior school ended the kid's academic area of study or something else.

No doubt you could throw that in the waiver case as a general argument. Sure. But it's not a general guideline they follow as to their reasoning, as precedence.

Fwiw he had some mystery illness that year is what I read. It lingered through the early part of the season, until finally it was decided he just wouldn't play that year. Tifwiw

Like I've mentioned before, I think he causes for receiving a waiver. Just don't see sitting out in the past as one of them, especially when he's apparently transferred multiple times. Not sure how kindly they would view a kid on his third move. But he has good reasons to fall back on here imo. And August 3rd may make it all completely moot anyway.

McCoy? He was suspended during a Title IX investigation.

Edit: my bad Devo I think you’re talking about why he transferred to USC

 

[VolGee4]

Tough to just allege any ole issue when the reason is well documented that he was removed from the football team while being investigated for felony intimate partner violence.

Obviously, employers and institutions can fire/cut even without criminal charges, but he was never officially charged. Missed the entire year. Kind of like if he would have sat out an NFL season. If USC isn’t going to re-instate him, then he can’t play. Not sure if he sued USC, but a former Xavier basketball player sued them for dropping him when there was no evidence, and I believe the DA recommended that he do it. These can be case by case issues, but it is truly a contentious environment for him, and the NCAA isn’t going to make him sit out a second year.

 

[Nashvegas31]

And we all know why. Sankey does not want Tennessee to be successful. A strong Tennessee causes Georgia and Bama both to have a harder path the the playoff.

Sankey wants a winning TN brand. It’s better for his bottom line. His hesitation. With Bru is the stories that come along with it. He just wants to make sure everything is properly vetted and nothing embarrassing can come out. I think they have rules in the league in terms of domestic things. Sankey has played a part in the NCAA investigation stuff to help us avoid serious penalties.granted he had extra incentive to keep the Bama UGa dirt TN officials dig up on Pruitt. Lol

 

[Devo182]

McCoy? He was suspended during a Title IX investigation.

Edit: my bad Devo I think you’re talking about why he transferred to USC

Yes, sorry was talking 2019. He applied for a waiver. I've never seen evidence of what happened with it, but he had some illness and finally just said he'd gear up for the next season.

 

[Devo182]

Obviously, employers and institutions can fire/cut even without criminal charges, but he was never officially charged. Missed the entire year. Kind of like if he would have sat out an NFL season. If USC isn’t going to re-instate him, then he can’t play. Not sure if he sued USC, but a former Xavier basketball player sued them for dropping him when there was no evidence, and I believe the DA recommended that he do it. These can be case by case issues, but it is truly a contentious environment for him, and the NCAA isn’t going to make him sit out a second year.

"Contentious environment" yes. That's the term I've been trying to think of. Think that's his slam dunk. The same thing Cade Mays used and sort of similar to what Justin Fields used..."hostile environment".

 

[MarcoVol]

Obviously, employers and institutions can fire/cut even without criminal charges, but he was never officially charged. Missed the entire year. Kind of like if he would have sat out an NFL season. If USC isn’t going to re-instate him, then he can’t play. Not sure if he sued USC, but a former Xavier basketball player sued them for dropping him when there was no evidence, and I believe the DA recommended that he do it. These can be case by case issues, but it is truly a contentious environment for him, and the NCAA isn’t going to make him sit out a second year.

Did sue but dropped the case

Bru McCoy drops suit against USC before start at Tennessee - USTimesPost