Jump to content

2019 ATH Bru McCoy

texifornia

By texifornia
in 🤫$9.95🤫

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Junior Miller
Junior Miller

Called it back in January: The staff knew from the the time he landed in Austin for spring semester there was a really high chance he would bolt. Only reason he left USC was because he felt lied

TrojanPrincess
TrojanPrincess

Naw, we heard a lot of noise Bru had second thoughts about flipping two weeks in. Just came back to close this account out, read a little and didn’t like Scott’s name attached to an untruth.

Sbbruin
Sbbruin

Posted Images

tittiesandbeer

tittiesandbeer 85

Posted
Posted

Rival Views: Should McCoy be able to play immediately at Texas?

Mike Farrell and Adam Gorney RIvals.com

FARRELL’S VIEW: NO

No way. I understand that McCoy may have been mislead by Kliff Kingsbury when he was the offensive coordinator at USC for a short period of time, but that’s life. Sorry to break it to everyone, but coaches lie all the time and so many kids have signed with a school only to see a position coach or coordinator leave for an NFL job or someplace else. If you allow McCoy to transfer without penalty after signing with USC you’re opening a door that can’t be closed. It won’t hurt McCoy to sit a year if that’s what he wants to do and no one forced him to enroll early or sign early. He could have waited until February to see if there would be any coaching changes but instead he decided to commit to USC. Players should commit to a school for reasons other than just a coach and this is a great chance to set that example.

 

GORNEY’S VIEW: YES

No one is blaming Kliff Kingsbury for leaving USC so quickly especially when an NFL head coaching job becomes available, but no one should hold  Bru McCoy  to his decision, either. He should be immediately eligible if he decides on going to Texas, which looks almost definite at this point. Days before making his commitment at the All-American Bowl – and the timeline seems to be foggy on when he actually signed his letter of intent – McCoy and his family sat down with the then-offensive coordinator for an in-home visit and Kingsbury broke down how the USC offense would run and what he envisioned for the program. McCoy bought in and then days later Kingsbury was interviewing with the Arizona Cardinals and then took the job. So the five-star athlete who will play receiver in college is now supposed to be held to a commitment he made basically under false pretenses, to a school without an offensive coordinator, when he is no longer secure in that choice? All the cliches about “pick a school for the school and not the coaches,” is just not how it works. Kids develop relationships with coaches and want to play for them, many times that’s where their loyalties lie. So McCoy, who’s been on USC’s campus only for a couple weeks, should be allowed to leave and head to Texas without any penalty – just like Kingsbury was allowed to leave for a better opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GotThatFire

GotThatFire 166

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, tittiesandbeer said:

Rival Views: Should McCoy be able to play immediately at Texas?

Mike Farrell and Adam Gorney RIvals.com

FARRELL’S VIEW: NO

No way. I understand that McCoy may have been mislead by Kliff Kingsbury when he was the offensive coordinator at USC for a short period of time, but that’s life. Sorry to break it to everyone, but coaches lie all the time and so many kids have signed with a school only to see a position coach or coordinator leave for an NFL job or someplace else. If you allow McCoy to transfer without penalty after signing with USC you’re opening a door that can’t be closed. It won’t hurt McCoy to sit a year if that’s what he wants to do and no one forced him to enroll early or sign early. He could have waited until February to see if there would be any coaching changes but instead he decided to commit to USC. Players should commit to a school for reasons other than just a coach and this is a great chance to set that example.

 

GORNEY’S VIEW: YES

No one is blaming Kliff Kingsbury for leaving USC so quickly especially when an NFL head coaching job becomes available, but no one should hold  Bru McCoy  to his decision, either. He should be immediately eligible if he decides on going to Texas, which looks almost definite at this point. Days before making his commitment at the All-American Bowl – and the timeline seems to be foggy on when he actually signed his letter of intent – McCoy and his family sat down with the then-offensive coordinator for an in-home visit and Kingsbury broke down how the USC offense would run and what he envisioned for the program. McCoy bought in and then days later Kingsbury was interviewing with the Arizona Cardinals and then took the job. So the five-star athlete who will play receiver in college is now supposed to be held to a commitment he made basically under false pretenses, to a school without an offensive coordinator, when he is no longer secure in that choice? All the cliches about “pick a school for the school and not the coaches,” is just not how it works. Kids develop relationships with coaches and want to play for them, many times that’s where their loyalties lie. So McCoy, who’s been on USC’s campus only for a couple weeks, should be allowed to leave and head to Texas without any penalty – just like Kingsbury was allowed to leave for a better opportunity.

 I think opening that door (That can’t be closed) is a good thing.  My initial thoughts without thinking about it much..  Players should be able to transfer without penalty if: the head coach, the coordinator on their side the ball, or the strength and conditioning coach lies to them and leaves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
satyanash

satyanash 14281

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, tittiesandbeer said:

Rival Views: Should McCoy be able to play immediately at Texas?

Mike Farrell and Adam Gorney RIvals.com

FARRELL’S VIEW: NO

No way. I understand that McCoy may have been mislead by Kliff Kingsbury when he was the offensive coordinator at USC for a short period of time, but that’s life. Sorry to break it to everyone, but coaches lie all the time and so many kids have signed with a school only to see a position coach or coordinator leave for an NFL job or someplace else. If you allow McCoy to transfer without penalty after signing with USC you’re opening a door that can’t be closed. It won’t hurt McCoy to sit a year if that’s what he wants to do and no one forced him to enroll early or sign early. He could have waited until February to see if there would be any coaching changes but instead he decided to commit to USC. Players should commit to a school for reasons other than just a coach and this is a great chance to set that example.

 

GORNEY’S VIEW: YES

No one is blaming Kliff Kingsbury for leaving USC so quickly especially when an NFL head coaching job becomes available, but no one should hold  Bru McCoy  to his decision, either. He should be immediately eligible if he decides on going to Texas, which looks almost definite at this point. Days before making his commitment at the All-American Bowl – and the timeline seems to be foggy on when he actually signed his letter of intent – McCoy and his family sat down with the then-offensive coordinator for an in-home visit and Kingsbury broke down how the USC offense would run and what he envisioned for the program. McCoy bought in and then days later Kingsbury was interviewing with the Arizona Cardinals and then took the job. So the five-star athlete who will play receiver in college is now supposed to be held to a commitment he made basically under false pretenses, to a school without an offensive coordinator, when he is no longer secure in that choice? All the cliches about “pick a school for the school and not the coaches,” is just not how it works. Kids develop relationships with coaches and want to play for them, many times that’s where their loyalties lie. So McCoy, who’s been on USC’s campus only for a couple weeks, should be allowed to leave and head to Texas without any penalty – just like Kingsbury was allowed to leave for a better opportunity.

Lol. And A&M claims we have Mike Farrell in our pocket.

Farrell has been under-rating Longhorn commits for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 48975

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SA-KC_Horn said:

That block at the minute mark is what gets him on the field early. 

Agree..... No doubt putting BRU on the field to block on both WR screens and RB plays wide to his side could increase the number of explosive +20yd plays. 🤘

Edited by LTtxfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 48975

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, JOSEYWALES66 said:

If he starts out as a WR, I could easily see him playing on defense on passing downs.  He has such a quick first step he could be highly successful rushing the passer. 

Interested to see how and when Herman/Orlando decide to use Bru on Defense.  Might be great to add Bru for a few plays at DE in 4th quarters to help improve the Texas pass rush in certain situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOOK'EMHOOAH

HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606

Posted
Posted

There are extenuating circumstances in the kingsbury situation and it seems to me that USC was trying to play both sides on this.

To play devil's advocate for a moment... both kingsbury and McCoy signed paperwork with the school for their futures (albeit for different avenues).

Even with those papers in place, there was serious deception at play with kingsbury looking to take the Arizona job and Helton and company not being forthcoming about everything that was happening. Helton used the advanced timeline of McCoy committing and signing the financial agreement when he did shortly followed by kingsbury taking the Arizona HC job and not communicating to him that things might change after he committed. So that institutional deception could be grounds for a hardship waiver by the NCAA for McCoy to be immediately eligible for the 2019 season at Texas. It goes beyond just a coach lying to the recruit. Its specifically and necessarily withholding vital information that would've had a direct impact on his decision had he had all the information prior to making his decision. To put this in analogy, it would be similar to getting married to someone then finding out after the fact that they are in serious debt. It may or may not change the decision to stay in the relationship but one might've had serious reconsideration had they known before hand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54001

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SA-KC_Horn said:

That block at the minute mark is what gets him on the field early. 

That's what I loved.  WRs need to be able to block physically.  It's why OU has always run bubble/quick screens better than we have.  Good blocking WRs also turn 20 yard runs into 50 yard runs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54001

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tittiesandbeer said:

Rival Views: Should McCoy be able to play immediately at Texas?

Mike Farrell and Adam Gorney RIvals.com

FARRELL’S VIEW: NO

No way. I understand that McCoy may have been mislead by Kliff Kingsbury when he was the offensive coordinator at USC for a short period of time, but that’s life. Sorry to break it to everyone, but coaches lie all the time and so many kids have signed with a school only to see a position coach or coordinator leave for an NFL job or someplace else. If you allow McCoy to transfer without penalty after signing with USC you’re opening a door that can’t be closed.

SO FUCKING WHAT.  The NCAA has plenty of research that shows that forcing players to sit is bad for the player's welfare (phyche, grades, engagement, etc.), yet we still have these stupid archaic rules forcing players to sit out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 48975

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

There are extenuating circumstances in the kingsbury situation and it seems to me that USC was trying to play both sides on this.

To play devil's advocate for a moment... both kingsbury and McCoy signed paperwork with the school for their futures (albeit for different avenues).

Even with those papers in place, there was serious deception at play with kingsbury looking to take the Arizona job and Helton and company not being forthcoming about everything that was happening. Helton used the advanced timeline of McCoy committing and signing the financial agreement when he did shortly followed by kingsbury taking the Arizona HC job and not communicating to him that things might change after he committed. So that institutional deception could be grounds for a hardship waiver by the NCAA for McCoy to be immediately eligible for the 2019 season at Texas. It goes beyond just a coach lying to the recruit. Its specifically and necessarily withholding vital information that would've had a direct impact on his decision had he had all the information prior to making his decision. To put this in analogy, it would be similar to getting married to someone then finding out after the fact that they are in serious debt. It may or may not change the decision to stay in the relationship but one might've had serious reconsideration had they known before hand.

 

The fact that Bru was also able to withdraw from USC and still sign papers to enroll at Texas by the Spring Semester deadline may also be a factor for immediate waiver approval from the NCAA.....

 https://registrar.utexas.edu/calendars/18-19

January 22  Tuesday:   Classes begin.
January 25th  Friday:  Fourth class day; Last day of the official add/drop period; after this date, changes in registration may require the approval of the department chair and usually the student’s dean. 
Last day undergraduate students may register and pay tuition without the approval of the registrar. (See General Information, Academic Policies and Procedures, for details.)
Tuition payment deadline is 5:00 p.m. for undergraduate, graduate, and law students. Tuition may be paid in full or in installments.
Edited by LTtxfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sdhornesq

sdhornesq 9

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

SO FUCKING WHAT.  The NCAA has plenty of research that shows that forcing players to sit is bad for the player's welfare (phyche, grades, engagement, etc.), yet we still have these stupid archaic rules forcing players to sit out.  

My suspicion is that the following arguments cumulatively win the day:

(1)  Kingsbury sold him on his system and Kingsbury left without coaching any players or in any games without penalty. Why shouldn't Bru?

(2)  He was only enrolled for a couple of weeks and both left USC before their drop class deadline and enrolled at UT before the enrollment deadline.

(3)  He was released from his NLI by USC

(4)  He committed to UT on or before NSD2 (should have just waited but 18 year old kids make decisions like 18 year old kids)

I think neither USC or the NCAA want to deny eligibility this year under these circumstances. It would be a very bad look.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lhorn

Lhorn 4885

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, futureman said:

bru will get the waiver.  he will play early and often.  he will be bigXII newcomer of the year, but I’m not sure on which side of the ball. 

Anything less than both sides of the ball will be a grave disappointment

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52342

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, sdhornesq said:

My suspicion is that the following arguments cumulatively win the day:

(1)  Kingsbury sold him on his system and Kingsbury left without coaching any players or in any games without penalty. Why shouldn't Bru?

(2)  He was only enrolled for a couple of weeks and both left USC before their drop class deadline and enrolled at UT before the enrollment deadline.

(3)  He was released from his NLI by USC

(4)  He committed to UT on or before NSD2 (should have just waited but 18 year old kids make decisions like 18 year old kids)

I think neither USC or the NCAA want to deny eligibility this year under these circumstances. It would be a very bad look.

KK did have a financial penalty to pay to void his contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54001

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, sdhornesq said:

 

I think neither USC or the NCAA want to deny eligibility this year under these circumstances. It would be a very bad look.

It would take me about 3 minutes to round up about 50 examples of the NCAA screwing over athletes.  They don''t give a shit about looking bad.  It's what they do best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sdhornesq

sdhornesq 9

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

It would take me about 3 minutes to round up about 50 examples of the NCAA screwing over athletes.  They don''t give a shit about looking bad.  It's what they do best. 

Historically, no, they don't. And it also wouldn't be shocked if they screw Bru over here. But I get the feeling that the general attitude at the NCAA has changed, even so slightly, toward the athlete with the O'Bannon case and other recent developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...