McCord

[djorange1989]

Who knows, maybe that's what happened. But, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

The same fans who thought Kyle was a stiff? Whatever

 

[orangefog]

The same fans who thought Kyle was a stiff? Whatever

Exactly.

 

[David321]

Ohio State fans by in large still stubbornly insist that Kyle isn't even that good of a quarterback. They're delusional.

 

[Sdot]

The reason the NCAA would bring McCord back is more about how much money he can make them with a 5th year more than everything. I still think it’s a small chance from people I’ve talked too but, the NCAA is gonna be a little more lenient on a guy who finished top 10 in heisman voting and was probably a top 10 guy in marketing this year for CFB.

 

[orangefog]

The reason the NCAA would bring McCord back is more about how much money he can make them with a 5th year more than everything. I still think it’s a small chance from people I’ve talked too but, the NCAA is gonna be a little more lenient on a guy who finished top 10 in heisman voting and was probably a top 10 guy in marketing this year for CFB.

The Syracuse offense will be must see TV next year with McCord.

 

[pokercuse08]

You make good points regarding revenue generated from successful programs because of high talent level-which is what all programs strive for.

Thanks, and yes the more high level talent that can come back and start in college instead of being a backup in the NFL, the more high level programs there can be. From a TV perspective, the factories are always going to have talent. But increasing parity through the top 50-60 teams makes a lot of matchups more interesting and drives higher ratings.

I guess I’m just lost when it comes to court cases based on failed appeals.

It may not be Kyle, but if nothing changes I expect to see two questions settled via lawsuit within a few years:

1. Why does the NCAA get to decide who's allowed to play college sports? What is the legal basis for arbitrary rules like four games = no year burned, five games = year burned?

2. (Assuming #1 hasn't happened yet) In a world with these arbitrary rules, why should a player lose a year of earning potential over a decision that they are not allowed to make themselves? In other words, does a coach have a fiduciary responsibility to not burn a year of earning potential for his players in a silly fashion? Perhaps redshirts should be mutually agreed upon and under contract at the beginning of the year, and a player should have to sign away his redshirt to enter a fifth game?

And I’m pretty certain neither Ohio State or Ryan Day would be embarrassed that a former player served inquest to a civil suit because the coach played him.

You're viewing it through the frame that the players show up to play and the coach plays them as he sees fit and then the chips fall where they may and everyone goes into the next season(s) accordingly. At the end of the day, who was served by Kyle playing that fifth game? Was anyone? In hindsight, Day lit seven figures of Kyle's earning potential on fire for what, exactly? And even in the old model, burning a year of eligibility for mop up duty in a blowout did what for Ohio State? Wouldn't they be better off with him having another year remaining?

Now trying to think about those questions, how does a potential lawsuit get covered by ESPN nationally and by talk radio in Columbus? Probably a lot of "Man not only can this guy not beat Michigan, he's just incompetent," takes.

Now imagine you're a coach at Michigan or Penn State or Syracuse and you're recruiting against Day for a kid. You are probably going to mention how he cost a kid $1.5 million by burning his redshirt, and how your school has never been sued for costing a kid seven figures of earnings by putting him in to mop up a blowout.

Last but not least, how do the national media cover it from the NCAA's perspective? Are the talking heads on ESPN and FS1 asking questions like, "Should the NCAA even have the authority to make arbitrary rules about eligibility in the NIL age?"

Because the NCAA very much does not need that question to be discussed, that's very much not in their interest.

 

[007]

The team party was scheduled last month for the 18th to allow the entire team to attend due to Christmas break.
McCord’s initial eligibility request was submitted the first week of spring camp and denied almost immediately. His appeal was filed in August, with an amendment mid November. The NCAA has until February 6 to review and file a decision on the appeal, February 7 is deadline for eligible athletes to make thier decision to return or become draft-eligible. The NCAA sub committee which reviews the filings concluded that there has to be gross negligence by the athletic institutions involved (Ohio St., SU) in regards to player participation and show beyond fair preponderance of law that it was detrimental to the student athlete.
Unfortunately McCord does not fall into this category. Playing time received is not a show of negligence on behalf of the university and its proxy (Ryan Day). There was no ill-intent by playing an eligible athlete in a game.
That being said, ultimately Kyle and Syracuse are going to be denied a 5th year. However, his case and 40 plus similar cases have pushed the governing body Committee members to vote next year to make wide spread rule changes for all Division I sports to allow for 5 years eligibility.

This reads so much differently than the wild guessing we typically see. Thanks for posting PJR1045

 

[pokercuse08]

The Syracuse offense will be must see TV next year with McCord.

Assuming we don't replace McCord with a proven, marketable commodity at QB... How much higher are the ratings in the Syracuse/Tennessee game with McCord than without him?

This goes towards the market efficiency stuff I brought up, which is more big picture... But it's in the best interest of Chick-fil-A and ESPN to have McCord playing in that game.

 

[GoCuse14]

Okay. I like you. I couldn't figure out why you said that.

We need a sticky explaining the correct font for these types of comments.

 

[bnoro]

I'm taking KJE's tweets VERY seriously. Not doubting any of the board insiders but information is fluid and changes quickly.

Why? Does KJE work for the NCAA?

He knows as much as you do about the situation.

 

[bnoro]

There's a few things at play here. Cuse has brought in a few guys but the McCord appeal chances while extremely extremely slim are still a factor and I also believe Cuse isn't as infatuated with any of the transfer QB's like they were McCord last year. Cuse also has Jakhari plus 3 frosh QBs coming in next summer which again is going to be in any transfer QB's calculation. I suspect SU will ultimately bring in someone but the situation will need to play out.

I think they are infatuated with a few guys who haven't hit the portal yet. Patience

 

[David321]

Why? Does KJE work for the NCAA?

He knows as much as you do about the situation.

Give me a break. I'm pretty certain that players on the team know more than me.

 

[BillSU]

Okay. I like you. I couldn't figure out why you said that.

I wanted to know who said that to you and I have discovered that that is something you never ask.

Anyone on this board who has a source for a post should never reveal that source. Sorry. I was going by the fact that everyone lately knows exactly everything about a player and found that hard to believe.

 

[orangefog]

I wanted to know who said that to you and I have discovered that that is something you never ask.

Anyone on this board who has a source for a post should never reveal that source. Sorry. I was going by the fact that everyone lately knows exactly everything about a player and found that hard to believe.

Now you know, Dasher ain't no snitch.

 

[pokercuse08]

Give me a break. I'm pretty certain that players on the team know more than me.

They have more info than us, but that doesn't necessarily make it good info. In a world where KJE "knows" something, we can pretty safely assume that it's not coming from Fran on up. If they know something and they're strategically holding it back, they're not telling the players for this very reason.

So if KJE knows something, it's coming from Kyle and his circle, and if it was some sort of final decision I would assume Kyle would be keeping that close to the vest if Fran wanted him to, so it circles back to that.

On the other hand, KJE is incentivized to drive engagement on his social media, drive traffic to his NIL merch, and could also be alluding to portal rumors or just be super confident in what he's seen from Jakhari in practice and thus think we're a top 10 team with him.

It's exciting to see, but I wouldn't read too much into it.

 

[CNYGuy]

Give me a break. I'm pretty certain that players on the team know more than me.

Some notable players we've had on prior teams didn't run their own social media accounts... (I do not know if KJE is one or if anyone on this year's team is one), but take that for what its worth about this particular situation.

 

[pokercuse08]

You’re looking at that 5th game from hindsight of a Syracuse fan. If Kyle McCord transferred to Nebraska and they went 7-5 and he faded away to UFA practice squad, I guarantee that you wouldn’t have given that burned year a thought-in fact, I’m certain you would never have known about it.

The waiver requests and lawsuits will always come from people who traveled the path of results that matter in hindsight. As a poker player I try not to be results oriented in my analysis and thinking. So, for example, maybe when Day burned the redshirt there was a 25% chance it would matter to the tune of $1.5 million - so the decision cost McCord $375K of expected earnings. So the way that plays out is four kids lose $375K of expected earnings, but once the results come in three kids lose nothing and one loses $1.5 million.

The kid who lost the $1.5 million is the one who puts in the waiver/appeals it and maybe sues. All of the future kids who could lose $375K in expected earnings when a coach messes up would benefit from a ruling in McCord's favor that protects their $375K in expected earnings, even though only 25% of them will see the actual benefit.

Also, none of us on this board are current b or past HCs of a division 1 team, let alone a blue chip factory like OSU. Day doesn’t have to give a reason for playing his players. NIL is secondary to coaches. And players play. Does it sick sometimes to lose an entire year? Of course! But we don’t know why Day ultimately played him when he did.

I would argue that while you're technically correct that Day doesn't have to give a reason, and that coaches coach and players play, the new landscape is a lot more complicated than that. I would also argue that NIL needs to be considered by coaches going forward, to avoid getting a reputation as a coach that ignores his players' futures. Would you want to send your kids to play for a coach who abides by "coaches coach and players play," with no eye towards a freshman's future NIL potential? Or would you want to send them to a coach who gives weight to his players' future earning potential when considering whether to put them into a fifth game?

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with alot of what you say. I’m not trying to come off as a douchebag, but we are just fans.

Don't worry, you're not coming off any bad way. I'm enjoying the discussion.

This is their profession and craft. If coaches coach with the possibility that they could be involved in a civil suit because they played a kid, that changes the game non a bad way….I like the argument you made, and you cited good examples, I just don’t agree because that will make sports softer than they already are becoming.

The game is changing in all sorts of ways, and we're not done with the period of rapid and drastic change. I don't think it makes sports softer, but I get why people don't like it. This to me is along the same lines of why an NFL team would shut down a QB who's playing through an injury if they're no longer in playoff contention. Why risk it for games that don't really matter? They're protecting the team's investment and the players' future earnings. At the college level, why risk a kid's future earnings for snaps that don't matter in mop up time in a fifth game?

Personally I like NIL and the portal compared to the old model, mostly because it's better for the players and that seems fair to me. I would prefer a little less movement, schools being able to pay directly for play, and transparency on what kids are being paid. So I'm hoping for an eventual system where that's the case and less movement is handled by multi-year contracts, although thinking about it now that might be bad for Syracuse.

On the other hand I hate conference realignment going the way it's gone, and I think that's really bad for the sport in the long run. But I also know the writing is on the wall, market forces are working, there's no appetite to regulate those forces, and we're all along for the ride.

I think the same is true of the NIL/redshirt situation. The writing's on the wall that it's going to be a factor coaches have to account for, it's not if it's when, so I'm hoping the when is now and the NCAA considers this and Day and Ohio State are behind the scenes pressuring the NCAA not to let them become the test case on a lawsuit.

Then hopefully we can move to 5 for 5 and let football coaches coach and players play without anyone having to worry about redshirts. I mean, isn't it in everyone's best interest for a freshman to get as much on-field time developing as possible without losing any future playing time/earning potential?

I mean, what's the argument in favor of the current redshirt/5 for 4 system over a 5 for 5 system? Who wants this?

 

[rocklloyd]

Now you know, Dasher ain't no snitch.

Because snitches get stitches.

 

[orangepassion]

Happy that it doesn't seem KJE is going anywhere-My pick for our team leader in sacks next year.

 

[javadoc]

The waiver requests and lawsuits will always come from people who traveled the path of results that matter in hindsight. As a poker player I try not to be results oriented in my analysis and thinking. So, for example, maybe when Day burned the redshirt there was a 25% chance it would matter to the tune of $1.5 million - so the decision cost McCord $375K of expected earnings. So the way that plays out is four kids lose $375K of expected earnings, but once the results come in three kids lose nothing and one loses $1.5 million.

The kid who lost the $1.5 million is the one who puts in the waiver/appeals it and maybe sues. All of the future kids who could lose $375K in expected earnings when a coach messes up would benefit from a ruling in McCord's favor that protects their $375K in expected earnings, even though only 25% of them will see the actual benefit.


I would argue that while you're technically correct that Day doesn't have to give a reason, and that coaches coach and players play, the new landscape is a lot more complicated than that. I would also argue that NIL needs to be considered by coaches going forward, to avoid getting a reputation as a coach that ignores his players' futures. Would you want to send your kids to play for a coach who abides by "coaches coach and players play," with no eye towards a freshman's future NIL potential? Or would you want to send them to a coach who gives weight to his players' future earning potential when considering whether to put them into a fifth game?


Don't worry, you're not coming off any bad way. I'm enjoying the discussion.


The game is changing in all sorts of ways, and we're not done with the period of rapid and drastic change. I don't think it makes sports softer, but I get why people don't like it. This to me is along the same lines of why an NFL team would shut down a QB who's playing through an injury if they're no longer in playoff contention. Why risk it for games that don't really matter? They're protecting the team's investment and the players' future earnings. At the college level, why risk a kid's future earnings for snaps that don't matter in mop up time in a fifth game?

Personally I like NIL and the portal compared to the old model, mostly because it's better for the players and that seems fair to me. I would prefer a little less movement, schools being able to pay directly for play, and transparency on what kids are being paid. So I'm hoping for an eventual system where that's the case and less movement is handled by multi-year contracts, although thinking about it now that might be bad for Syracuse.

On the other hand I hate conference realignment going the way it's gone, and I think that's really bad for the sport in the long run. But I also know the writing is on the wall, market forces are working, there's no appetite to regulate those forces, and we're all along for the ride.

I think the same is true of the NIL/redshirt situation. The writing's on the wall that it's going to be a factor coaches have to account for, it's not if it's when, so I'm hoping the when is now and the NCAA considers this and Day and Ohio State are behind the scenes pressuring the NCAA not to let them become the test case on a lawsuit.

Then hopefully we can move to 5 for 5 and let football coaches coach and players play without anyone having to worry about redshirts. I mean, isn't it in everyone's best interest for a freshman to get as much on-field time developing as possible without losing any future playing time/earning potential?

I mean, what's the argument in favor of the current redshirt/5 for 4 system over a 5 for 5 system? Who wants this?

Very well said. I have had some difficulty figuring out how to articulate some amorphous thoughts that have been nagging at me and you captured a lot of it.

The genie is out of the bottle, and I think we should be looking ahead toward the end-game state, where things will inevitably go.

I really do think that the Supreme Court is ultimately going to rule that there is very little the NCAA can do to control the financial behavior of "college" football, and the interests of the players will ensure that the Court hears it all.

Take the 5-year rule. That's arbitrary. The NCAA already gave up the fort by allowing a 5th year and the redshirt. If kids can get their degree and be out in 4, why allow the 5th year? Because once you have allowed the 5th year, why not 6? If all parties involved want to keep collaborating, and the player is finishing a 2-year master's program, who is the NCAA to say that the student-athlete can't remain eligible?

 

[Cuseregular]

The waiver requests and lawsuits will always come from people who traveled the path of results that matter in hindsight. As a poker player I try not to be results oriented in my analysis and thinking. So, for example, maybe when Day burned the redshirt there was a 25% chance it would matter to the tune of $1.5 million - so the decision cost McCord $375K of expected earnings. So the way that plays out is four kids lose $375K of expected earnings, but once the results come in three kids lose nothing and one loses $1.5 million.

The kid who lost the $1.5 million is the one who puts in the waiver/appeals it and maybe sues. All of the future kids who could lose $375K in expected earnings when a coach messes up would benefit from a ruling in McCord's favor that protects their $375K in expected earnings, even though only 25% of them will see the actual benefit.


I would argue that while you're technically correct that Day doesn't have to give a reason, and that coaches coach and players play, the new landscape is a lot more complicated than that. I would also argue that NIL needs to be considered by coaches going forward, to avoid getting a reputation as a coach that ignores his players' futures. Would you want to send your kids to play for a coach who abides by "coaches coach and players play," with no eye towards a freshman's future NIL potential? Or would you want to send them to a coach who gives weight to his players' future earning potential when considering whether to put them into a fifth game?


Don't worry, you're not coming off any bad way. I'm enjoying the discussion.


The game is changing in all sorts of ways, and we're not done with the period of rapid and drastic change. I don't think it makes sports softer, but I get why people don't like it. This to me is along the same lines of why an NFL team would shut down a QB who's playing through an injury if they're no longer in playoff contention. Why risk it for games that don't really matter? They're protecting the team's investment and the players' future earnings. At the college level, why risk a kid's future earnings for snaps that don't matter in mop up time in a fifth game?

Personally I like NIL and the portal compared to the old model, mostly because it's better for the players and that seems fair to me. I would prefer a little less movement, schools being able to pay directly for play, and transparency on what kids are being paid. So I'm hoping for an eventual system where that's the case and less movement is handled by multi-year contracts, although thinking about it now that might be bad for Syracuse.

On the other hand I hate conference realignment going the way it's gone, and I think that's really bad for the sport in the long run. But I also know the writing is on the wall, market forces are working, there's no appetite to regulate those forces, and we're all along for the ride.

I think the same is true of the NIL/redshirt situation. The writing's on the wall that it's going to be a factor coaches have to account for, it's not if it's when, so I'm hoping the when is now and the NCAA considers this and Day and Ohio State are behind the scenes pressuring the NCAA not to let them become the test case on a lawsuit.

Then hopefully we can move to 5 for 5 and let football coaches coach and players play without anyone having to worry about redshirts. I mean, isn't it in everyone's best interest for a freshman to get as much on-field time developing as possible without losing any future playing time/earning potential?

I mean, what's the argument in favor of the current redshirt/5 for 4 system over a 5 for 5 system? Who wants this?

Great post. Thanks for taking the time, appreciate the discussion of all of yas. I’ve gotten very agnostic with all of this. Completely don’t expect The waiver to come through, would be psyched, if it somehow, miraculously does.

 

[texascpa]

Very well said. I have had some difficulty figuring out how to articulate some amorphous thoughts that have been nagging at me and you captured a lot of it.

The genie is out of the bottle, and I think we should be looking ahead toward the end-game state, where things will inevitably go.

I really do think that the Supreme Court is ultimately going to rule that there is very little the NCAA can do to control the financial behavior of "college" football, and the interests of the players will ensure that the Court hears it all.

Take the 5-year rule. That's arbitrary. The NCAA already gave up the fort by allowing a 5th year and the redshirt. If kids can get their degree and be out in 4, why allow the 5th year? Because once you have allowed the 5th year, why not 6? If all parties involved want to keep collaborating, and the player is finishing a 2-year master's program, who is the NCAA to say that the student-athlete can't remain eligible?

Heck, you can't even get your CPA license without taking 5-years of college. Wasn't Nassib an Accounting major?

 

[llandz]

Let's not forget that the guy who headed the NCAA when we constantly got screwed, because something happened to him at SU when he was a student like a girl screwed him over, is no longer there. This is like a "Makeup call" in a game. The NCAA might feel like they "owe" us a nice decision.

 

[texascpa]

Let's not forget that the guy who headed the NCAA when we constantly got screwed, because something happened to him at SU when he was a student like a girl screwed him over, is no longer there. This is like a "Makeup call" in a game. The NCAA might feel like they "owe" us a nice decision.

I always wondered why we didn't seem to get any of our appeals accepted.

 

[phil77]

I think they are infatuated with a few guys who haven't hit the portal yet. Patience

I thought it was going to be Beau when I saw him it the portal early