Tim Byerly -Update

[katlong]

It's players like this that GT needs to recruit regardless of "stars".
Congratulations Mr. Byerly it's been a pleasure watching you play.

AMEN! I will miss #18...we all will.

 

[Skeptic]

From Ken S article:
"In Byerly’s case, he sat out one season to redshirt and another as a transfer, both are which considered within an athlete’s control."

What is a situation beyond injury that would be considered not within the athlete's control? I can see the transfer sit-out being within his control because he choose to transfer. The redshirt seems to be more within control of coaching staff. Does it take 2 early season ending injuries to get a year 6?

Maybe he should not have played so hard? Pretty sure he would not have wrecked his knee to miss the season. As for the transfer, and while I don't have the answer, it is punitive to have a player first sit out a year, then lose a year of eligibility. It is intended solely to establish control of the player in the hands of the coach. Forget fair; it is just not right. I could go sitting out a year to prevent a player doing the pro thing of the '20s, going from school to school as desired. But not both. So sit out a year so LB U does not get the guy or guys it needs for a NC, but keep his eligibility. Somebody explain to me what is wrong with that? Of course I forget this is the NCAA, whose role in collegiate athletics diminishes daily. Of what use is it anymore?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Maybe he should not have played so hard? Pretty sure he would not have wrecked his knee to miss the season. As for the transfer, and while I don't have the answer, it is punitive to have a player first sit out a year, then lose a year of eligibility. It is intended solely to establish control of the player in the hands of the coach. Forget fair; it is just not right. I could go sitting out a year to prevent a player doing the pro thing of the '20s, going from school to school as desired. But not both. So sit out a year so LB U does not get the guy or guys it needs for a NC, but keep his eligibility. Somebody explain to me what is wrong with that? Of course I forget this is the NCAA, whose role in collegiate athletics diminishes daily. Of what use is it anymore?

I think they're still clinging to the antiquated notice that SA's are amateurs and students first and not football mercenaries.

 

[chewybaka]

If this guy doesn't epitomize what we want and need in a player at GT, nobody does. What an A #1 class act! It's a shame the NCAA, in it's infinite wisdom (sic), won't let him play another year for GT. Seems like we constantly get the shaft from them. I wonder what in the world is the reasoning behind their decision.

I think I know the answer, but I am compelled to ask ...is there an appeal process or a legal challenge option vs accepting the arcane , capricious rulings of this antiquated body....sorry I m fired up when it comes to the NCAA...

 

[JacketFromUGA]

I think I know the answer, but I am compelled to ask ...is there an appeal process or a legal challenge option vs accepting the arcane , capricious rulings of this antiquated body....sorry I m fired up when it comes to the NCAA...

nope it's done

 

[chewybaka]

nope it's done

Rats!

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Helluva Jacket! God Bless you TB.

**** you NCAA.

 

[Frenchise]

nope it's done

I thought you could definitely appeal. You could also sue, but that's not likely to result in anything.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Did Byerly redshirt before or after he transferred to GT?

 

[B Lifsey]

I think he redshirted his FR year at Middle Tenn. Sat out his RS-FR year due to transfer. Played his RS-SO and RS-JR years. Missed RS-SR due to injury. As someone else mentioned, he got to play 2 of his 5 years.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think he redshirted his FR year at Middle Tenn. Sat out his RS-FR year due to transfer. Played his RS-SO and RS-JR years. Missed RS-SR due to injury. As someone else mentioned, he got to play 2 of his 5 years.

The "free choice" redshirt year is why he was denied. However, I'm trying to think of a scenario where a guy asks for a 6th yr where he didn't redshirt. I guess it must be when they miss two years due to injury and one is counted as the typical redshirt year and the other is the "medical exception redshirt."

 

[bke1984]

The "free choice" redshirt year is why he was denied. However, I'm trying to think of a scenario where a guy asks for a 6th yr where he didn't redshirt. I guess it must be when they miss two years due to injury and one is counted as the typical redshirt year and the other is the "medical exception redshirt."

I don't really like the denial of the 6th year in this case. You've got these kids at BYU that can basically defer football while on a mission and beef up their bodies, kids that can choose to play baseball for several years and do the same, both of which are able to return as a 25 year old and play. But then a kid gets seriously injured and he's denied.

The rules in the NCAA are so crazy. It's way too subjective. The rules should be clear cut and you should only have to apply when you do not meet them. I guess they're worried about faking injuries to maintain eligibility, but come on man...

I can't see the rationale of denying Tim in this case.

 

[jackette]

I thought you could definitely appeal. You could also sue, but that's not likely to result in anything.

if an attorney could find a player similar to Tim's situation which was allowed the Byerly family could sue in court or maybe Ga Tech, just a thought

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I don't really like the denial of the 6th year in this case. You've got these kids at BYU that can basically defer football while on a mission and beef up their bodies, kids that can choose to play baseball for several years and do the same, both of which are able to return as a 25 year old and play. But then a kid gets seriously injured and he's denied.

The rules in the NCAA are so crazy. It's way too subjective. The rules should be clear cut and you should only have to apply when you do not meet them. I guess they're worried about faking injuries to maintain eligibility, but come on man...

I can't see the rationale of denying Tim in this case.

It just depends on precedent. If taking a non-medical redshirt has always been cause for denial, it's hard to justify reversing it now. Not sure if that is the case, though.

For example, a guy like Quaide was more or less forced into his redshirt this year due to injury. If he were to get injured later in his career and forced to sit out another year, he might have a better case than Tim for a 6th yr.

 

[CuseJacket]

It just depends on precedent. If taking a non-medical redshirt has always been cause for denial, it's hard to justify reversing it now. Not sure if that is the case, though.

For example, a guy like Quaide was more or less forced into his redshirt this year due to injury. If he were to get injured later in his career and forced to sit out another year, he might have a better case than Tim for a 6th yr.

This is how I understand it. It was unlikely Byerly would get another year, so the decision for him is just unfortunate but not surprising. I think Ken wrote as much in an article earlier in the season as well.

As of today Leggett and Searcy have 3 more years to play despite having redshirted in 2014. Quaide and Cottrell have four... that's because they have 5 years to play 4 and not a result of their injuries this year. If any were to miss another year in the future due to injury, they should be good candidates for another year of eligibility. Obviously no one wants to see that happen; just clarifying the rules as they're currently set.

 

[Skeptic]

This is how I understand it. It was unlikely Byerly would get another year, so the decision for him is just unfortunate but not surprising. I think Ken wrote as much in an article earlier in the season as well.

As of today Leggett and Searcy have 3 more years to play despite having redshirted in 2014. Quaide and Cottrell have four... that's because they have 5 years to play 4 and not a result of their injuries this year. If any were to miss another year in the future due to injury, they should be good candidates for another year of eligibility. Obviously no one wants to see that happen; just clarifying the rules as they're currently set.

This is the result of Leggett and Searcy playing some in 2013?

 

[forensicbuzz]

This is how I understand it. It was unlikely Byerly would get another year, so the decision for him is just unfortunate but not surprising. I think Ken wrote as much in an article earlier in the season as well.

As of today Leggett and Searcy have 3 more years to play despite having redshirted in 2014. Quaide and Cottrell have four... that's because they have 5 years to play 4 and not a result of their injuries this year. If any were to miss another year in the future due to injury, they should be good candidates for another year of eligibility. Obviously no one wants to see that happen; just clarifying the rules as they're currently set.

If Quaide or Cottrell were to lose another year due to injury, they would have a high percentage chance of getting the medical waiver. Leggett will probably not get this past year back because he didn't lose his True Freshman year due to injury, but due to choice. I think Leggett was hurt some, his True Freshman year, but not enough (I think. Too lazy to go back and look up how much he missed due to injury).

Searcy saw too much time this year. Once he played in the ND game, he lost that chance. Now, had he not redshirted, he could have applied for a medical waiver to regain last year since he was injured so close to the RS cut-off. That's what happened to Golden.

 

[B Lifsey]

Searcy wasn't here in 2013. He was a FR in 2014 and redshirted. In 2015, he was RS-FR and injured majority of season. So, he will have 3 more years to play.

 

[awbuzz]

This is how I understand it. It was unlikely Byerly would get another year, so the decision for him is just unfortunate but not surprising. I think Ken wrote as much in an article earlier in the season as well.

As of today Leggett and Searcy have 3 more years to play despite having redshirted in 2014. Quaide and Cottrell have four... that's because they have 5 years to play 4 and not a result of their injuries this year. If any were to miss another year in the future due to injury, they should be good candidates for another year of eligibility. Obviously no one wants to see that happen; just clarifying the rules as they're currently set.

Same should hold true for Benson.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Searcy wasn't here in 2013. He was a FR in 2014 and redshirted. In 2015, he was RS-FR and injured majority of season. So, he will have 3 more years to play.

The point was that Searcy probably won't be granted a Medical Waiver for this year (even though he was injured in the first half of the 3rd game) because his RS year was not due to injury, but "by choice." I wasn't talking about him having another three years, but another 4 years. There is precident for player who was injured in the 3rd game of the season to be granted a medical waiver for that lost year, i.e. Golden. However, since Searcy redshirted his first year by choice, he has almost no chance of regaining the year of eligibility.

Had Searcy lost his true freshman year due to an injury, there is a chance that he could have regained this year's eligibility.