Kyle McCord to NFL Draft

[tptcuse]

Let’s be honest- if Kyle gets another year it’s because the NCAA is a full blown kangaroo court and just doesn’t have an interest in regulating anything anymore.

I hope it happens. He was great this year.

I mean...

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Well NIL hasn't existed for years and you have a case here of a NIL earning athlete that had a year of earning potential taken from him by a coach's decision - McCord wasn't in a position to challenge that as a person subordinate to the coach. He may or may not get the waiver, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as saying there are years of precedent. There are not years of precedent with a significant NIL earning athlete under these circumstances. There’s basically one other case and the subject chose not to sue over it.

How would the NCAA be liable? Wouldn’t it be Ohio State that needs to be sued? Day is the one who screwed him, not the NCAA.

How exactly does a law suit help SU? Is it a financial damages suit? If so that does not help SU. Is it for eligibility? There would need to be an eligibility resolution within the next 3-4 weeks for Kyle to play here next year. Otherwise he will declare for the draft. And that is assuming that Kyle even wants to put the effort into a law suit.

 

[orangefog]

So he deserves another year of eligibility because it turns out he’s good at football and can get paid by donors and a dumby coach played him too much when he was less good?

He should apply for an extra year next year too. He threw even less passes as a sophomore.

Some of you have a staggering ability to completely delude yourselves intellectually. 5 is not 4.

Let’s be honest- if Kyle gets another year it’s because the NCAA is a full blown kangaroo court and just doesn’t have an interest in regulating anything anymore.

I hope it happens. He was great this year.

If a dude can get 9 years, why can’t Kyle get 5?

 

[DownTheField]

He would make over a million dollars (again) if he returns next season. He can't though because Ryan Day burned a year of his eligibility for 8 passes in his fifth game of 2021 I believe it was.

By any reasonable man's standard, that is slam dunk, seven figure NIL damages.

SU obviously thinks it was worth appealing so I’m not saying there’s no chance, but I don’t think that’s their argument. The NCAA rules say a kid can play in four games and still preserve a redshirt and McCord played in five. It seems pretty cut and dried. It was Day’s choice to put him in for that extra game, and it was a really crappy thing to do, but roster and playing time decisions are a coach’s prerogative.

I just don’t think the “Day screwed McCord by putting him in for a fifth game” argument is going to be a winning one.

 

[David321]

So he deserves another year of eligibility because it turns out he’s good at football and can get paid by donors and a dumby coach played him too much when he was less good?

He should apply for an extra year next year too. He threw even less passes as a sophomore.

Some of you have a staggering ability to completely delude yourselves intellectually. 5 is not 4.

Let’s be honest- if Kyle gets another year it’s because the NCAA is a full blown kangaroo court and just doesn’t have an interest in regulating anything anymore.

I hope it happens. He was great this year.

First off, the bolded part was obnoxious.

Secondly, yeah, that's how tort cases work (and it may come to that if his petition is denied); someone is injured in some type of way and litigates to recover financial compensation. But surely an intellectual like yourself knows this already.

I don't mind people being confident with their predictions, but your haughty attitude? Man I'd really like to see you eat crow on this.

 

[DownTheField]

If a dude can get 9 years, why can’t Kyle get 5?

This is a genuine question because I don’t know the answer and don’t have the time to look it up, but have any of those kids played in more than four games for four years (not counting 2020)?

 

[orangefog]

This is a genuine question because I don’t know the answer and don’t have the time to look it up, but have any of those kids played in more than four games for four years (not counting 2020)?

I don’t believe so, but the 5 years is clear in the rule. Just as clear as the 4 games part of the rule. Why can’t one get a waiver on one part of the rule but not another?

 

[DownTheField]

First off, the bolded part was obnoxious.

Secondly, yeah, that's how tort cases work (and it may come to that if his petition is denied); someone is injured in some type of way and litigates to recover financial compensation. But surely an intellectual like yourself knows this already.

I don't mind people being confident with their predictions, but your haughty attitude? Man I'd really like to see you eat crow on this.

Who is getting sued, why should there be damages, and what are the appropriate damages?

As far as I can tell SU thinks they may have found a good enough argument to make an appeal worthwhile and the NCAA will make a decision on that. I’m not sure where all this talk of damages came from.

 

[David321]

Who is getting sued, why should there be damages, and what are the appropriate damages?

As far as I can tell SU thinks they may have found a good enough argument to make an appeal worthwhile and the NCAA will make a decision on that. I’m not sure where all this talk of damages came from.

I don't expect you to read all the pages in this thread as it's a long one, but I will only repeat myself so many times.

 

[Cusefan69]

So he deserves another year of eligibility because it turns out he’s good at football and can get paid by donors and a dumby coach played him too much when he was less good?

He should apply for an extra year next year too. He threw even less passes as a sophomore.

Some of you have a staggering ability to completely delude yourselves intellectually. 5 is not 4.

Let’s be honest- if Kyle gets another year it’s because the NCAA is a full blown kangaroo court and just doesn’t have an interest in regulating anything anymore.

I hope it happens. He was great this year.

 

[cuse62]

I do not know the answer to this question. Can a player who has played five or more games, then is injured, receive a medical red shirt?

 

[PeteCalvin]

Who is getting sued, why should there be damages, and what are the appropriate damages?

As far as I can tell SU thinks they may have found a good enough argument to make an appeal worthwhile and the NCAA will make a decision on that. I’m not sure where all this talk of damages came from.

By losing his redshirt prior to the birth of NIL, he lost an opportunity to earn $1.5 - 2 million next season, something he most likely wouldn’t make even in the NFL next year. Those are damages.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I do not know the answer to this question. Can a player who has played five or more games, then is injured, receive a medical red shirt?

Sometimes!

The NCAA is like Who's Line Is It Anyway?

Everything's made up and the points don't matter.

 

[PeteCalvin]

I do not know the answer to this question. Can a player who has played five or more games, then is injured, receive a medical red shirt?

No, but two completely different situations. In the age of NIL, an injured player is still earning $$$.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

But in all seriousness, it's probably better for the NCAA to keep guys in college uniforms.

 

[tep624]

I've heard this example being used a couple of times. I'm not familiar with him (I mainly follow the ACC). How similar was his case to McCord though? NIL wise I mean.

My understanding was that he had a $1.5mm offer on the table to transfer to Auburn had he been able to get his sixth year. His frosh year he played in 5 games including the last one where he was in for 2 snaps. Saban wrote a letter to the NCAA supporting him but to no avail.

 

[tep624]

How would the NCAA be liable? Wouldn’t it be Ohio State that needs to be sued? Day is the one who screwed him, not the NCAA.

How exactly does a law suit help SU? Is it a financial damages suit? If so that does not help SU. Is it for eligibility? There would need to be an eligibility resolution within the next 3-4 weeks for Kyle to play here next year. Otherwise he will declare for the draft. And that is assuming that Kyle even wants to put the effort into a law suit.

It isn’t about a lawsuit helping SU. It’s about McCord having a case to sue on his own behalf since he will be losing out financially as a result of a decision made by a member institution employee to which he was a subordinate.

Player is subordinate to Coach, Coach is subordinate to NCAA, it’s not leaping to conclusions here.

 

[David321]

My understanding was that he had a $1.5mm offer on the table to transfer to Auburn had he been able to get his sixth year. His frosh year he played in 5 games including the last one where he was in for 2 snaps. Saban wrote a letter to the NCAA supporting him but to no avail.

Wow. Okay, that is alarmingly similar admittedly.

If that is the case then perhaps the only substantial difference would be if SUAD informed the NCAA that Kyle, unlike the other player, will sue if denied.

 

[Phillymoose]

This whole concept of loss of potential earnings is complicated, and while Kyle's appeal most certainly will not mention it directly, it has to hang over this decision by the NCAA like a specter.

The NCAA supposedly represents the common interests of its members, and if a decision it makes opens up OSU or Day to a plausible legal liability (and therefore sets a dangerous and costly precedent), it will be extremely cautious with how it proceeds - and is likely getting heavy legal help/advice.

I think historical precedent in similar cases is irrelevant. The age of NIL is here, and a change so profound was bound to have unpredictable and unintended consequences.

That all being said, I don't think a tortious interference claim would succeed - primarily because OSU and Day certainly did not have the intent to block Kyle from something that didn't even exist at the time. But - that is a matter of fact-finding - not legal theory. This 'issue' will only exist for a relatively short window of time (those in school during the NIL transition) - and I can definitely see the NCAA grandfathering waivers during this time just to avoid this ever making it to litigation. Hell - maybe they give Kyle his waiver and ask him to sign one at the same time.

 

[JRHEETER]

My understanding was that he had a $1.5mm offer on the table to transfer to Auburn had he been able to get his sixth year. His frosh year he played in 5 games including the last one where he was in for 2 snaps. Saban wrote a letter to the NCAA supporting him but to no avail.

Boy that sounds familiar

 

[FrancoPizza]

They did. Day signed off on it. Thursday or Friday would be great.

Is Ohio st trying to poach him?

 

[tep624]

This whole concept of loss of potential earnings is complicated, and while Kyle's appeal most certainly will not mention it directly, it has to hang over this decision by the NCAA like a specter.

The NCAA supposedly represents the common interests of its members, and if a decision it makes opens up OSU or Day to a plausible legal liability (and therefore sets a dangerous and costly precedent), it will be extremely cautious with how it proceeds - and is likely getting heavy legal help/advice.

I think historical precedent in similar cases is irrelevant. The age of NIL is here, and a change so profound was bound to have unpredictable and unintended consequences.

That all being said, I don't think a tortious interference claim would succeed - primarily because OSU and Day certainly did not have the intent to block Kyle from something that didn't even exist at the time. But - that is a matter of fact-finding - not legal theory. This 'issue' will only exist for a relatively short window of time (those in school during the NIL transition) - and I can definitely see the NCAA grandfathering waivers during this time just to avoid this ever making it to litigation. Hell - maybe they give Kyle his waiver and ask him to sign one at the same time.

Yeah I don’t think there is any type of case against OSU or Day because NIL didn’t exist at the time of the decision so you can’t really say they were negligent. However the NCAA approving NIL and then denying a player a sixth year under these circumstances seems murky at best.

 

[orangepassion]

This feels like the 2024 version of Dan Mullen to SU

 

[David321]

This feels like the 2024 version of Dan Mullen to SU

Except everyone is arguing and there's no turkey.

 

[orangefog]

This feels like the 2024 version of Dan Mullen to SU

Nobody can argue that logic and precedent state that there is zero chance that a waiver is granted. However, it's still out there and the NCAA's history of ignoring precedent and granting impossible waivers gives us hope. It is going to be a fun couple days.