ADVERTISEMENT

OT: The other Tua was Denied…

tico brown

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2005
17,106
11,729
113
I know there’s another thread on Maryland’s Taulia Tagovailoa but I didn’t feel like searching for it.

Interesting that he was denied an extra year by the NCAA and is now getting ready for the draft.

 
The argument was that although he played in 5 games one season, he only took two snaps in two of the games. And one of them was to honor Tua since it was his last season.

But the rule is you appear in more than four games, you've used up a year. It's pretty cut and dried. The rule is already pretty liberal allowing four games. So I was surprised he even attempted it.
 
The argument was that although he played in 5 games one season, he only took two snaps in two of the games. And one of them was to honor Tua since it was his last season.

But the rule is you appear in more than four games, you've used up a year. It's pretty cut and dried. The rule is already pretty liberal allowing four games. So I was surprised he even attempted it.
Isn't that the rule the NCAA applied to Naseim Brantley?
 
Any word on WR Brantley ?
This decision may be a problem for Brantley.

You and I had this back and forth in December (almost exactly a month ago), and unless something spectacular happens, not sure things will work out for Brantley:

Even if he "participated" in 5 games (it seems he recorded receptions in 4 games), wouldn't he be able to qualify for a medical redshirt?

Just not seeing how with covid and a medical redshirt, he does not have an extra year of eligibility and what the hold up is?

It seems the NCAA treated 2020-21 as a single season, as far as I can tell.

2022- played in 10 games for Western Illinois
2021- 11 games played for Sacred Heart
2020- Spring Season?- 4 games
2019-played at least 9 games for Sacred Heart
2018- appeared in 5 games before getting injured (ESPN lists only 4 games with stats)

Putting that aside, as far as I can tell, he should be eligible for a medical redshirt for 2018: "Redshirts are granted by the NCAA when a player missed a significant part of the season due to injury or medical concern. The player must have been injured before the halfway point of the season, have played less than 30% of games, and had an injury or medical concern that’s “season ending” (of course, with the usual exceptions)."

COVID played a huge factor for any College Football athlete that was on the team during the outbreak of the pandemic. The NCAA granted an additional year of eligibility to athletes due to the large impact on the season, with most schools cutting their number of games and some not even fielding a team. This is how some active College Football players are in their fifth or sixth season (looking at you, JT Daniels).











The issue is his former school. They say he played 5 games and he said he only played in 4 games.
Sacred Heart is lying. Should be easy to confirm.

As I asked above, why can he not get a medical redshirt under the rule that " in order to be granted a medical redshirt, the athlete must: Suffer an injury that is deemed “season-ending” Their injury must occur before the halfway point of the season. Not participate in more than 30% of the season's games."

I might be wrong but that’s exactly the issue: 30%
Sacred Heart is saying he played in 30% of the games in 2018 and Brantley is saying he didn’t.
Medical Shirt only he didn’t play in 30% of the games.

I swore that read 50% somewhere else, and I was posting late (early in the a.m.).


I see this now (from Wikipedia):

"In January 2017, the trade association for college football coaches, the American Football Coaches Association, proposed a change to that sport's eligibility rules that maintains the current model of four years of play in five years, but significantly changes the redshirt rule. Under the proposal, medical redshirts would be eliminated, but redshirt status would not be lost unless a player participated in more than four games in a season.[3] The proposal, which was unanimously passed by the AFCA subcommittees for all three NCAA divisions,[4] was approved by the NCAA Division I Council in June 2018, taking effect with the 2018 college football season.[5] The original proposal was to have been retroactive, meaning that players with athletic eligibility remaining who had played in four or fewer games in a given season would have effectively received one extra season of eligibility,[4] but the final passed proposal was not retroactive.[5]"

The bio linked above on the Rutgers website says with respect to 2018: "2018 (Freshman at Sacred Heart): Played in five games with one start at wide receiver."

Frankly, Rutgers is not helping their cause here, as they are asking for an exception to the four game limit. However, I checked the participation list for the 2018 Sacred Heart v. Lafayette game, and Brantley is not on the list:


Also not on the list for the Sacred Heart vs. Bucknell Game:

But Brantley is showing stats (and of course participation in the games against Wagner, Cornell, Penn and Dartmouth.

Did Rutgers present this information to the NCAA showing he is not listed as participating in the Lafayette and Bucknell games and he only participate in 4 games? 🤷‍♂️
 
This decision may be a problem for Brantley.

You and I had this back and forth in December (almost exactly a month ago), and unless something spectacular happens, not sure things will work out for Brantley:
I don't understand what the problem is with the NCAA that they still have this unresolved. Seems pretty simple. I'm sure Sacred Heart or their opponent had game tape from that season. Spend a couple of hours looking at the tape of the game in question and see if he played or not.
Is there something I'm missing????
 
I don't understand what the problem is with the NCAA that they still have this unresolved. Seems pretty simple. I'm sure Sacred Heart or their opponent had game tape from that season. Spend a couple of hours looking at the tape of the game in question and see if he played or not.
Is there something I'm missing????
Yeah- I’ve been asking myself this too…fast forward through the game and you end up spending maybe 1.5 hours total to see if the kid came in for a play or not…
 
No, the issue with Brantley was his former school was a bitch and didn't provide the necessary documentation to clear him to play.
But as we have been asking, why can't he, with the assistance of Rutgers clarify the issue? Seems to be something that could be cleared up?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: colbert17
Have no idea if it's accurate.
Schiano had addressed the issue a couple of times, but he did not get into details (and that likely could have caused problems). Guessing that the NCAA has a process, went with what Sacred Heart provided, and it was up to Brantley and/or Rutgers to provide evidence that Sacred Heart's info was wrong. This would seem to be the fair and straightforward process, but this is the NCAA we are talking about so. . . . .
 
Have no idea if it's accurate.
Schiano had addressed the issue a couple of times, but he did not get into details (and that likely could have caused problems). Guessing that the NCAA has a process, went with what Sacred Heart provided, and it was up to Brantley and/or Rutgers to provide evidence that Sacred Heart's info was wrong. This would seem to be the fair and straightforward process, but this is the NCAA we are talking about so. . . . .
Maybe Keith Sargeant can do his next 4 month investigative report getting to the bottom of this matter.
 
If the other school cooperated, yes.
This is Jersey. Kevin Wilson pointed out how re roll. So, you know, why not?

af00d6a3-f5fe-45ee-b25f-9a11d2cefbce_text.gif
 
But as we have been asking, why can't he, with the assistance of Rutgers clarify the issue? Seems to be something that could be cleared up?
I believe Rutgers did look at it and presented their facts, but for some reason no one will ever know, Scared Heart did not do their due diligence and follow up on the matter. Sacred Heart is the one who has to sign off on the eligibility card. No way would Rutgers have taken this kid if they didn't think they had a solid case.
 
Last edited:
I believe Rutgers did look at it and presented their facts, but for some reason no one will ever know, Scared Heart did not do their due diligence and follow up on the matter. Sacred Heart is the one who has to sign off on the eligibility card. No way would Rutgers have taken this kid if they didn't think they had a solid case.
Scared Heart, typo or not, love it. I have a proposal. Brantley lives in Farmingdale/Howell, right in our area. I'll borrow a fire engine, pick you up and we'll drive on up there and open up a can of whoop as with a firehose and whatever else we can throw at them and then threaten to sue them into oblivion, and make them an offer they can't refuse. By the time we are done with Scared Heart, they will be Scarred Heart. I'll be by at 3:30 p.m. We will strike the football complex at midnight. 🚒🧨
 
  • Haha
Reactions: koleszar
I believe that Sacred Heart's game at Central Connecticut State on Oct 20, 2018 is the issue. On both the Sacred Heart Football website, and also on the Central Connecticut Football website, Brantley is listed as a starter in the game, although he has no stats for the game. If he played in the game, it would have been his fifth game of the season.

Seems there would be some video or photo that could determine if he really did start or if he appeared, and also documentation of when his injury actually occurred that prevented him from playing the rest of the games that season. He's number 83. The photo below taken after a Sacred Heart touchdown, from the Sacred Heart game photos of the game in question, shows that he WAS dressed for the Central Connecticut game...(assuming that nobody else wore his number for that game) The question is, did he play or not....

https://sacredheartpioneers.com/gal...tral-connecticut-10-20-2018/image-1/150/36330
 
Last edited:
But as we have been asking, why can't he, with the assistance of Rutgers clarify the issue? Seems to be something that could be cleared up?
It would very easy to approve or deny Brantley’s eligibility by watching his 2018 season games.
He says he only participated in 4 games ( and these are his only stats). His school claims he played in 5 games. Brantley knows full well if he played or not. The NCAA should watch the entire 5th game that Sacred Heart claims he played in. Simple case. We would think Brantley knows if he stepped on the field. Hopefully it was not for one play or one offensive series.
 
It would very easy to approve or deny Brantley’s eligibility by watching his 2018 season games.
He says he only participated in 4 games ( and these are his only stats). His school claims he played in 5 games. Brantley knows full well if he played or not. The NCAA should watch the entire 5th game that Sacred Heart claims he played in. Simple case. We would think Brantley knows if he stepped on the field. Hopefully it was not for one play or one offensive series.
Therein lies the rub. Just speculating- maybe the Sacred Heart "records" "show" that he "participated" in the game. Maybe he was on the "participation list," and maybe he tweaked something in warmups and did not actually play. Don't even know how he would present his side of the story that he did not go on the playing field at any point during the game, short of the deciding group of the NCAA watching video of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU#1fan
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT