View Full Version : Justin McCay seeking waiver to play immediately at Kansas
NorthernIowaSooner
2/6/2012, 01:31 PM
From ESPN
Justin McCay, a transfer from Oklahoma, is a key component to Weis' plans. And the coach and his staff expects McCay to play for the Jayhawks this season. McCay is filing for a hardship waiver from the NCAA in hopes of bypassing the transfer rules.
"We're hoping that he can play next year," offensive line coach Tim Grunhard told Matt Tait of KUSports.com. "If you read the story and you read the letter and you read about some of the things he's gone through in his life, I want to meet the NCAA compliance person that says no to him. Because if you say no to him, then obviously you don't understand what's so important to this kid and what a great person he is. We're hoping it all works out."
Seems like everyone who transfers anymore wants a waiver for some reason or another. I don't think just because you've had a tough go of it that you should get out of the requirement to sit out for a year.
Sooner_Bob
2/6/2012, 01:33 PM
I understand why they have the sit out rule, but I've never agreed with it.
Curly Bill
2/6/2012, 01:35 PM
So let me get what they're saying: because he's had a tough life the rules need not apply? Really?
Curly Bill
2/6/2012, 01:36 PM
Without the sit out rule you'd have players changing colleges willy-nilly. It'd be worse than anything we see with pro sports and free agency.
EatLeadCommie
2/6/2012, 01:43 PM
Was that tough life the reason that Bob let him transfer to an in-conference foe?
Ignoring the "my five-star recruiting arse has had it sooooo d@mn tough in life" nonsense and zooming right in on the reason why McCay hasn't played but three college games in his career, he needs to sit out a year for his own benefit. He's injury-prone. Throwing himself back into the fray in an underpowered, undermanned, sissified KU squad (thanks for coddling them, Turner! You're no big meanie like Mangino!) means... high high injury risk.
For your own good, sit out a year.
NorthernIowaSooner
2/6/2012, 01:57 PM
I personally don't understand why transferring to be closer to home (i.e. Brandon Williams) would allow a player to get a waiver on the rule. You want to be closer to home? Goal accomplished, now sit out a year. I don't think these kids should be getting waivers if their true goal in transferring is to get closer to home. Football has little to do with getting closer to home.
Sooner_Bob
2/6/2012, 02:56 PM
Without the sit out rule you'd have players changing colleges willy-nilly. It'd be worse than anything we see with pro sports and free agency.
Kinda like college coaches do?
Just because a kid wants to transfer doesn't mean he'll get to. He'd still need to be released from his current school. Make that process harder or make them meet some qualifications and you wouldn't need the sit out rule. It'd be the same concept as them applying for a waiver. The school AND the NCAA would need to grant them a release.
SoonerAtKU
2/6/2012, 03:05 PM
Isn't it still two years for an in-conference transfer? Or has that changed as well?
8timechamps
2/6/2012, 03:11 PM
I personally don't understand why transferring to be closer to home (i.e. Brandon Williams) would allow a player to get a waiver on the rule. You want to be closer to home? Goal accomplished, now sit out a year. I don't think these kids should be getting waivers if their true goal in transferring is to get closer to home. Football has little to do with getting closer to home.
Yep. If things are so bad, that you cannot fulfill your obligation and need to be closer to home, then a year off shouldn't matter.
jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
2/6/2012, 03:12 PM
Kinda like college coaches do?
Just because a kid wants to transfer doesn't mean he'll get to. He'd still need to be released from his current school. Make that process harder or make them meet some qualifications and you wouldn't need the sit out rule. It'd be the same concept as them applying for a waiver. The school AND the NCAA would need to grant them a release.
You are confusing 2 different subjects here -> The release is from his LOI for financial aid (non-ncaa) while the transfer sit-out is an NCAA Basketball/Football rule.
For example, had OU barred him from going to KU he could still go there. He would just have to pay for the 1 year (2 years for in conference) himself (and sit out the 1 year due to NCAA rules). Because of the expense incurred (upwards of 40k for that one year) most kids heed the rules when finding another place to play.
Honestly, this is a bed of our own making since we set the precedent with Tashard Choice and Georgia Tech. Once we got that door opened, it was only a matter of time before the rule got neutered.
Sooner_Bob
2/6/2012, 04:22 PM
You are confusing 2 different subjects here -> The release is from his LOI for financial aid (non-ncaa) while the transfer sit-out is an NCAA Basketball/Football rule.
For example, had OU barred him from going to KU he could still go there. He would just have to pay for the 1 year (2 years for in conference) himself (and sit out the 1 year due to NCAA rules). Because of the expense incurred (upwards of 40k for that one year) most kids heed the rules when finding another place to play.
Honestly, this is a bed of our own making since we set the precedent with Tashard Choice and Georgia Tech. Once we got that door opened, it was only a matter of time before the rule got neutered.
Which is why I said just because a kids wants to do so doesn't mean they do . . . the smart kid would only do it if both the school and the NCAA granted the waiver/permission. Not many kids are going to be able to cover the expenses while they're off financial aid.
Sooner_Bob
2/6/2012, 04:24 PM
Yep. If things are so bad, that you cannot fulfill your obligation and need to be closer to home, then a year off shouldn't matter.
Seriously? Punish the kid for making an impulsive decision to move away from home only to realize it isn't the situation he wants to be in and needs to get closer to home for support? Sitting out could make things worse for the kid. Sometimes letting them get back out and play after they're back "home" could be the biggest help.
soonerboy_odanorth
2/6/2012, 04:47 PM
Seriously? Punish the kid for making an impulsive decision to move away from home only to realize it isn't the situation he wants to be in and needs to get closer to home for support? Sitting out could make things worse for the kid. Sometimes letting them get back out and play after they're back "home" could be the biggest help.
I fail to see where the poor little kid is being punished. He can transfer, he can have his education paid for while he learns a new program/system, then has more than enough eligibility following the "transfer-shirt" year to build his resume for the next level... IF he has that degree of talent. But especially in conference, he should have to sit out a year, just on the principle of keeping at least a shred of integrity to the game.
Let's pretend: Blake Bell's mom is diagnosed with a disease that can only be treated in a trial program being held at UT med school in Austin. His family moves there to support her treatment. You ok with Blake transferring to the 'horns right away to play against us this October?
I'm not. I'm ok with him transferring and having his education paid for by UT, but not playing. No way.
Seriously? Punish the kid for making an impulsive decision to move away from home only to realize it isn't the situation he wants to be in and needs to get closer to home for support? Sitting out could make things worse for the kid. Sometimes letting them get back out and play after they're back "home" could be the biggest help.
It would be one thing if home were Georgia like it was for Tashard... but we're not talking uber distance here... Kansas is a drive up an interstate away from OU. And they are in our conference, so it's not like us letting Owens go to TU to be closer to Muskogee.
Something's gotta give, man, or they're gonna be making excuses about needing to be closer to their pet ant farm that they left back in this town they once traveled to that happens to be in the same place as their choice destination for transferring.
BoulderSooner79
2/6/2012, 05:44 PM
Not really OUr issue, but I don't assume filing the waiver means it gets approved. If the waiver does get approved, I only hope it is a level playing field and we would be judged fairly if we file such a waiver on a players behalf.
NorthernIowaSooner
2/6/2012, 06:03 PM
Seriously? Punish the kid for making an impulsive decision to move away from home only to realize it isn't the situation he wants to be in and needs to get closer to home for support? Sitting out could make things worse for the kid. Sometimes letting them get back out and play after they're back "home" could be the biggest help.
What he "could" do is a garbage argument. He could do the opposite.
They're adults, they need to learn know the rules going into their commitment and the consequences they face when they decide to transfer. Football doesn't address the problem they came home to deal with so it doesn't matter if they sit out a year.
8timechamps
2/6/2012, 06:03 PM
Seriously? Punish the kid for making an impulsive decision to move away from home only to realize it isn't the situation he wants to be in and needs to get closer to home for support? Sitting out could make things worse for the kid. Sometimes letting them get back out and play after they're back "home" could be the biggest help.
Like I said, if they need to be home, then a year off of football shouldn't matter.
So, schools should pay the price for kids making "impulsive decisions"? That's not how it works, nor should it. McCay had other offers and ample time to make his decision. He chose OU. If he wants to play for Kansas, then best of luck to him, but he'll do it under the rules.
Now, what if a coach on the hot seat decided two years into a kids scholarship that it would really help him to free up a scholarship by releasing a player to make room for a better player? Can you imagine the backlash? What's the difference?
jkjsooner
2/6/2012, 06:10 PM
Just because a kid wants to transfer doesn't mean he'll get to. He'd still need to be released from his current school. Make that process harder.
At first I thought you were an advocate for the student athlete but then you said this. What you're saying would be far worse for the student athlete.
Frankly, I don't think anyone should have to worry about a release. Afterall schools don't own a player. If a player wants to leave then he should always be able to leave and play anywhere he and his future coaches desire - assuming he is willing to sit out a year.
TheUnnamedSooner
2/6/2012, 08:16 PM
Isn't it still two years for an in-conference transfer? Or has that changed as well?
I was wondering the same thing.
did he really ask to leave or was this an oversign or something?
if a coach can suggest that a student should transfer, i don't see why they should have to sit out a year, regardless of why they go
BoulderSooner79
2/6/2012, 08:56 PM
There is a general transfer rule and a waiver process to handle exceptions. I don't see a problem here unless the rules are not being followed. Having Weis comment publicly should have no bearing on the outcome.
SoonerMarkVA
2/6/2012, 09:15 PM
Isn't it still two years for an in-conference transfer? Or has that changed as well?I was wondering the same thing.
Me three. Anyone know what the deal is here?
8timechamps
2/6/2012, 10:54 PM
Here is the authority on all transfer related issues, it's the 2011/2012 NCAA Transfer Guide. Ckick this link to look it over: This one! (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/TGONLINE2011.pdf)
picasso
2/7/2012, 12:15 AM
Who is Justin McCay?
TheHumanAlphabet
2/7/2012, 03:58 AM
Honestly, this is a bed of our own making since we set the precedent with Tashard Choice and Georgia Tech. Once we got that door opened, it was only a matter of time before the rule got neutered.
Wasn't Tashard's mother ill/sick/dying and that is why the door opened for him? Is that the case with this Justin McCay fellow?
Lots of stories on his transfer, nothing about why. Only inkling is a comment that we have a bunch of guys and sometimes it is a good thing to start fresh somewhere else...Wonder if he was in the dog house?
Curly Bill
2/7/2012, 08:50 AM
Who is Justin McCay?
Best post of the thread! LOL
Soonerjeepman
2/7/2012, 10:19 AM
I know losing his parents was tough...but on the other hand he went to a Catholic school in a nice part of town..lived with coaches, I think and other parents...as far as material things, he never had to suffer. He wasn't from the projects by any means....Yes that doesn't make up for not having parents, but it's been 2 yrs...or more I think. Not to punish him but I don't see the "hardship" rule here. He's transferring because his old HS hc is now at KU and he wasn't playing at OU..he got recruited over...just my 2 cents worth...
Widescreen
2/7/2012, 10:42 AM
I like the sit out rule because I think it cuts down on kids rage-quitting. They have to think about it and decide if it's worth it.
Curly Bill
2/7/2012, 10:43 AM
I like the sit out rule because I think it cuts down on kids rage-quitting. They have to think about it and decide if it's worth it.
Yup!
jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
2/7/2012, 11:02 AM
At first I thought you were an advocate for the student athlete but then you said this. What you're saying would be far worse for the student athlete.
Frankly, I don't think anyone should have to worry about a release. Afterall schools don't own a player. If a player wants to leave then he should always be able to leave and play anywhere he and his future coaches desire - assuming he is willing to sit out a year.
Although you can question the fairness of it, the LOI system is like the player signing a 5 year lease agreement with the school (it is a binding contract). Now think about how hard it is to break a lease without any penalties.
Except my landlord can't evict me for a new tenant that scores more touchdowns than I do
jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
2/7/2012, 02:23 PM
Except my landlord can't evict me for a new tenant that scores more touchdowns than I do
Your landlord COULD do this though by not renewing your lease (which is essentially what happens as we don't renew their scholarship). I'd imagine that in some states like Cali you could successfully fight the restriction, but since its a time sensitive event, you'd be past your eligibility before it was finalized.
Why should a tenant have to renew every year then?
8timechamps
2/7/2012, 08:44 PM
Why should a tenant have to renew every year then?
That's why the NCAA needs to get the proposed (which I already thought was approved) guaranteed 4 year scholarship rule in place. Protects the kids, and the school.
jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
2/8/2012, 12:45 PM
Why should a tenant have to renew every year then?
It is about the term of the contract which for a tenant is 6 months but for a football player is 5 years.
That's why the NCAA needs to get the proposed (which I already thought was approved) guaranteed 4 year scholarship rule in place. Protects the kids, and the school.
Don't you think both sides deserve a way to get outta the "contract" early though, just in case it's not a match made in heaven for a wide variety of possible reasons?
Coaches retire, players get injured, coaches take different jobs, new staff comes in, academics are too tough, coaches are too tough, fans are too tough, homesickness, jumping out of the back of trucks, drinking 'dr. pepper and' at Thunder games, left of center driving, Burlington Coat Factory shopping trips... the list is endless.
8timechamps
2/8/2012, 02:44 PM
Don't you think both sides deserve a way to get outta the "contract" early though, just in case it's not a match made in heaven for a wide variety of possible reasons?
Coaches retire, players get injured, coaches take different jobs, new staff comes in, academics are too tough, coaches are too tough, fans are too tough, homesickness, jumping out of the back of trucks, drinking 'dr. pepper and' at Thunder games, left of center driving, Burlington Coat Factory shopping trips... the list is endless.
No question. I think the current regulations for transfer should be kept in place. If you're transferring because of a true hardship, then football shouldn't matter, so the one year shouldn't matter. However, I've always felt if a player wanted to transfer, and the coach of the losing institution signed off on it, and the coach of the receiving institution signed off on it, the kid should be able to play without waiting. I think that would solve many of these issues. Sometimes kids and schools don't gel, and they both know it. For those cases, there should be a simpler option.
jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
2/8/2012, 03:41 PM
No question. I think the current regulations for transfer should be kept in place. If you're transferring because of a true hardship, then football shouldn't matter, so the one year shouldn't matter. However, I've always felt if a player wanted to transfer, and the coach of the losing institution signed off on it, and the coach of the receiving institution signed off on it, the kid should be able to play without waiting. I think that would solve many of these issues. Sometimes kids and schools don't gel, and they both know it. For those cases, there should be a simpler option.
Except for the fact that you could end up with a free agency kind of dealio. We need a corner and they need a WR so we just swap?
8timechamps
2/8/2012, 03:54 PM
Except for the fact that you could end up with a free agency kind of dealio. We need a corner and they need a WR so we just swap?
Good point, which is why a system like that isn't in place.
BoulderSooner79
2/8/2012, 07:27 PM
I don't see any problem with the current system. There is a general transfer/sit-out rule with an appeal (waiver) process. I don't perceive the waiver process as a "rubber stamp" because many get denied. And if it were easy to get a waiver on bogus claims, then most transferring players would file for a waiver just in case. But most don't bother and most transfers do sit out a year. If McCay gets a waiver, I'll naively assume his reasons for an appeal were legit.
birddog
2/8/2012, 08:46 PM
pack arse, good man. had high hopes for you. Sooners rule. now **** off dip ****.
cleller
2/8/2012, 09:54 PM
If his life has been so tough, and he is dealing with so much stress, how can these KU coaches honestly feel he's ready for the football regimen right now.
If they were that concerned, they'd wait for things to get swell for him first.
Let the indecisive, uncommitted kid sit out and grow up.
BoulderSooner79
2/9/2012, 12:25 AM
Is all this angst because the waiver process is bogus or because this particular player left OU? Let me guess...
Is all this angst because the waiver process is bogus or because this particular player left OU? Let me guess...
Or perhaps, it's because he left for a school that's only one state over in our conference that we're scheduled to play every year for the next eternity?
SoonerAtKU
2/9/2012, 08:51 AM
Correct, if he had left for Wichita State or for the Centenary Gentlemen, I don't think a waiver would have been an issue.
Sooner_Bob
2/9/2012, 09:55 AM
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/851/facepalmck.jpg/
TheHumanAlphabet
2/9/2012, 10:16 AM
I'm figuring Bob probably has determined that perhaps the kid isn't all that and figures he won't be lighting it up against OU or he would have been more specific when he released him.
oudavid1
2/9/2012, 11:07 AM
Your landlord COULD do this though by not renewing your lease (which is essentially what happens as we don't renew their scholarship). I'd imagine that in some states like Cali you could successfully fight the restriction, but since its a time sensitive event, you'd be past your eligibility before it was finalized.
Yes but in this case, the lease is an agreement where the tenet makes money (Scholarship and a degree, something that really cannot be taken away as far as i understand it).
The kid knew the rule when he transferred, but since there is no harm in trying, try. But if the waiver fails, he or KU shouldn't be surprised. I kind of wish there was a fee for wasting the NCAA's time in other cases (obviously McCay's is pretty serious) where a school is just trying everything.
BoulderSooner79
2/9/2012, 02:00 PM
Or perhaps, it's because he left for a school that's only one state over in our conference that we're scheduled to play every year for the next eternity?
Bob chose not to put a stipulation on his release to restrict going to a conference team - I have no reason to question that decision.
8timechamps
2/9/2012, 02:15 PM
Bob chose not to put a stipulation on his release to restrict going to a conference team - I have no reason to question that decision.
I don't question the release either, but I don't think the kid's situation qualifies him for exemption from the rules.
8timechamps
2/9/2012, 02:15 PM
Is all this angst because the waiver process is bogus or because this particular player left OU? Let me guess...
Of course. Kids transfer schools all the time. We just don't care because either a)he's not leaving OU, or b) he's not coming to OU.
BoulderSooner79
2/9/2012, 03:40 PM
Of course. Kids transfer schools all the time. We just don't care because either a)he's not leaving OU, or b) he's not coming to OU.
My exact point, although I don't particularly care about the kids leaving. It didn't work out and he freed up a scholly. I haven't seen his reasons for filing a waiver and I don't know what the criteria is for granting one anyway, so I have no way to judge whether he should qualify. Maybe everyone here knows all that stuff. I just hope he gets a fair shake just as I'd hope for a kid trying to do this who was coming our way.
NorthernIowaSooner
2/9/2012, 06:35 PM
Is all this angst because the waiver process is bogus or because this particular player left OU? Let me guess...
This might be true if he was a contributor, he didn't do anything here so it isn't a big loss. His leaving frees up a scholly for someone who might actually contribute.
It just brings the issue to the forefront because he left OU.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.