Hunt denied again | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Hunt denied again

It's not any sort of vendetta. To think otherwise is silly.

The rules state that a player can be granted one medical hardship waiver OR one red-shirt during a five year period. Hunt red-shirted his freshman year. Therefore, he's not eligible for a medical hardship waiver.
Well, Dan Conley redshirted his freshman year, and following his injuries, was granted a 6th year.
 
It really sucks for Terrel, but let's think about it from the NCAA's point of view. If they let a kid who played 5 games get another year, why not allow a kid that played 6 games, and so on and so on. This is a cut and dry case that has a sh!tty backstory.

If Hunt wasn't such a great human interest story I don't think there would be as much outrage.

It's not that he played 4 or 5 games in a season; it's that he played like 1 quarter of ONE game in his last season.
After only playing 5 games the prior year.
It's the combo of BOTH of those facts, and the NCAA saying "meh", that sucks for 'Rel.
 
[

It's not that he played 4 or 5 games in a season; it's that he played like 1 quarter of ONE game in his last season.
After only playing 5 games the prior year.
It's the combo of BOTH of those facts, and the NCAA saying "meh", that sucks for 'Rel.
Geez. Don't you know about the rounding up to the nearest game rule! That makes it so cut and dry!
 
It's not that he played 4 or 5 games in a season; it's that he played like 1 quarter of ONE game in his last season.
After only playing 5 games the prior year.
It's the combo of BOTH of those facts, and the NCAA saying "meh", that sucks for 'Rel.

It is a weird rule. You can play in 4 games one year then 4 games the next year (8 games total) and get a waiver but if you play in 5 games and 1 game (6 total) you cannot get a waiver? It isn't hard to figure out. If a kid plays 4 games or less in 2 different seasons give him a waiver. OR if a kid plays in 8 games or less total combined for 2 seasons give him a waiver. Whether that be 8 games one year and zero the next or any combo in between. Hunt missed 75% of SU's games the last two seasons.

I would be totally fine making the rule that you get credit for every game you miss. Once you hit 12 games missed, you get another year. So that could be as little as 3 games per year over 4 years or as much as 12 games in a single season.
 
Last edited:
If people want to criticize the policy, that's fair game. Have at it. The NCAA does tons of dumb stuff for dumb reasons.

It's the cries of vendetta and claims that the NCAA is somehow out to get Syracuse that are mind numbing and diminish this board and Syracuse fans in general.

The rule is clear. Criticize the rule all you want, but the NCAA simply followed the long standing rule. Anyone who had bothered to read the rule knew there was no way Hunt was ever getting a 6th year. There is no basis for claiming vendetta or unfair treatment.
 
Actually, the NCAA does tend to grant players a 6th year of eligibility if they missed TWO full seasons with injuries. Hunt doesn't qualify.

2011: Redshirted (non-injury related).
2012: Freshman year, played on special teams
2013: Sophomore year, played 10 games
2014: Junior year, played in 5 games before injury (NCAA cutoff is 4 games)
2015: Senior year, played in 1 game before injury.

The sad fact is Hunt only missed 1 full season under NCAA rules. If he had been injured earlier in 2014, he might have received the waiver.
So he missed the "definition" by one game (2014)? Wow. Shouldn't "close" count for an institution whose BOD's includes the SEC and whose core values include:
  • The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics. ?
http://www.ncaa.org/about/ncaa-core-values
 
Last edited:
So he missed the "definition" by one game (2014)? Wow. Shouldn't "close" count for an institution whose BOD's includes the SEC and whose core values include:
  • The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics. ?
http://www.ncaa.org/about/ncaa-core-values

I understand the frustration, but the NCAA has to have a line somewhere, and stick to it. If they didn't, then there is precedence and everyone would expect the same treatment.
 
I understand the frustration, but the NCAA has to have a line somewhere, and stick to it. If they didn't, then there is precedence and everyone would expect the same treatment.
I get the reasoning. But the NCAA is the last institution to be standing on principle, if they're claiming to value "academics" with a straight face.
 
I get the reasoning. But the NCAA is the last institution to be standing on principle, if they're claiming to value "academics" with a straight face.
He already graduated and has his masters...

He has no academic reason to still be at Syracuse, only an athletic one.
 
He already graduated and has his masters...

He has no academic reason to still be at Syracuse, only an athletic one.
You missed the whole point, B. I was referring to the NCAA's hypocrisy with academics and the farce going on in the SEC, not TH's transcript. As X84 already pointed out, they've made exceptions in similar situations before.
 
This isn't exactly like Hunt's csase but Iowa's Drew Ott's is trying to get a 5th year approved after he tore up his elbow in week 2 but continued to play on a limited basis until he tore his ACL in week 6 so he played two full games but is technically over the limit according to the 30% rule. Be interesting whenever the NCAA decides to rule and we all know how that is

http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sp...ntz-spring-football-news-conference/82120662/
 
Just asking. It seems like the deciding factor appears if a player takes a non-medical redshirt their freshman year, then gets injured. Is there some logic behind penalizing freshman redshirts? I'm just wondering unless I misunderstand the rules and prior appeal rulings - that it is punitive towards players who redshirt as freshmen.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,141
Messages
4,682,319
Members
5,900
Latest member
DizzyNY

Online statistics

Members online
295
Guests online
1,263
Total visitors
1,558


Top Bottom