Oh, I'm piling on all the judges that are just creating out and out chaos. Here we are less than 2 weeks from everyone starting their football season and we still don't know who is eligible and who is not because the NCAA doesn't have control, the courts do.
SEC makes a statement on professional athletes before two day conference meeting...
- Thread starter Dawgzilla2
- Start date
I understand that, but just because a judge rules a player eligible doesn’t mean a school has to let them in.
It needs to but will never happen because we have idiots who value their self worth on a school's athletic team ,that most didn't attend ,and their paid Hessians beating another person's said athletic team so they can say "Muh skule is betta than yore skule, and I'm betta than you. Hurr Durr".
Yup. As annoying as this is, I don't think the players trying to come back are taking a particularly unreasonable position. They likely would have taken another guaranteed payday in college if they'd had the opportunity, but the NCAA screwed the pooch with how they handled it (shocker). The NCAA should have made the 5 to play 5 rule apply starting in fall of 2027.
This may be an overstep of the SEC’s jurisdiction, however, the SEC could withhold a portion of the 73 million distribution to each school that violates the SEC eligibility policy.
Either way, lawyers are gonna make some money off of this
Either way, lawyers are gonna make some money off of this
I’m not pushing the idea nor am I saying that this is a fun ride.
I’m just stating the facts. The laws in this country are decidedly (and rightly so) favored toward those: A) wishing to earn a living.. and B) striving to further their education.
As long as those two are intermingled in collegiate athletics, it’s doomed.
That is, unless you can undo a shitload of laws.
Are they not already professional athletes? They are, in fact, getting paid to play football (or whatever sport). It just happens that they are doing so while attending a school. Why should someone who has remaining college eligibility (whatever that means, anymore) not be allowed to come back after playing professionally somewhere else?
Just playing devil's advocate here. This is the logical conclusion of whatever we're calling college athletics these days.
The SEC statement says what "should not" happen and talks about what will "blur the lines between college and professional sports". That ship has sailed.
Just playing devil's advocate here. This is the logical conclusion of whatever we're calling college athletics these days.
The SEC statement says what "should not" happen and talks about what will "blur the lines between college and professional sports". That ship has sailed.
For what it's worth, it looks like the Big 10 has decided not to take returning NFL players. I doubt Kiffen cares much about this though.
Sources: Big Ten won't allow players to return from NFL - ESPN
Sources: Big Ten won't allow players to return from NFL - ESPN
So we get to pick and choose when to be upset about players defying the NCAA and getting a 6th year?
While this is true, it doesn't matter to Kiffen. The player could have raped, maimed, or killed; all Kiffen sees is eligible.
This is the right thing to do. Applaud them and the Big10 for making this call. Glad some adults are stepping up to take charge on this.
No school is going to turn down a 4 or 5 star player that wants to play another year of college ball.
I'm not a mathemagician, but I think if the 5 to play 5 rule started in 2027, it would include the class of 2023. And by announcing it before the 2026 season (or even just at the end of it), it would have allowed people to know they had another year of eligibility before they declared for the draft or signed any pro contract.
If he meets the requirements and they don't let him enroll, they are setting themselves up for a court visit. Now I see your point and I'm not disagreeing, but judges have been overreaching a lot. All the schools agreed that the NCAA would be their governing body. They make the rules, but when someone don't like the rules, they just go to court. Judges should just stay out of it but they don't. It will not surprise me if a judge tells a school they have to let a guy in. It has all gotten past bat **** crazy. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Last edited:
I think each school can just not recruit or pay him and there's not much the court can do about that. But what you can't do and the court can stop is the conference telling a school you can't take one of these players.
That is exactly the same situation we are in right now, you are just wording it differently. Right before the start of the 2026 season they have announced the class of '23 grads are eligible for a 5th year, but the class of '22 grads only get 4. The '22 grads are suing.
Now, if they waited until later in the season to announce it, they likely prevent the '22 class from getting injunctions, at least for football. The former players could still seek monetary damages under the same theories.
I really dont see a way to implement this without getting sued by someone. They should have thought of this while players were still getting COVID years, or else just wait for Congress to pass legislation.
Exactly. It was obvious at least 2 years ago that this was heading towards permanent 5-year eligibility. Should have just announced the Covid 5-year rule was now permanent then.
I think the conference will have to walk a fine line. Convince the Presidents and ADs that its best for the conference and the sport to not sign these guys. But if they threaten them with penalties, they will be added as defendants.
Truth is, the SEC will probably be added as a defendant if the NFL players are kicked out, but they will be in a better legal position if they can say no threats were made
I’m assuming they still have the power to say who is eligible for championships and Bowl tie ins.
I'm not sure when the 5-for-5 rule was first thought of, but it wasn't publicly announced as a possibility until this past April, and it couldn't be voted on until June.
It wasn't really necessary until all these players started suing for extra years. Wish someone had brought it up after Pavia got his injunction.
There is no way to not get sued when state judges will embarrass themselves to help their university out. But they could cut down on the oppotunity to argue their rule is arbitrary. If they had voted on the rule in their October meeting, there wouldn't have been any argument that they were arbitrarily excluding the class of 2022. That class would already be out of its eligibility. Every class within the 5 year frame would be eligible. Already enrolled students that would have more favorable eligibility under the old redshirt rule could retain that status.
I mean, it's ridiculous to say that the NCAA can't change the rules for 2027 in the summer of 2026 without getting sued. But with the way lawsuits were going and all the judges willing to embarrass themselves and discredit the bench in order to help their favorite university football team (or at least curry votes with their fans), this was completely foreseeable and completely avoidable by the NCAA.
Think about all of the high school and juco players that meet every requirement except that they suck at football. Point being, schools have been turning away kids for 100+ years.
Good luck with that if there’s a valid court injunction allowing the player to play.
I think Slive is putting it on the schools, not to give these players a spot on the roster.
"We don't have a spot for you." Only way to level the playing ground.
If you have no scholarships, they can't get on the roster.
They won't have leg to stand on, unless the school and coaches get behind it.
LSU may have created a problem bigger than an eligibility loophole. CBS reports LSU & Lane Kiffin encouraged NFL players to sue the NCAA. The NCAA Constitution allows action when a member’s conduct “undermines the interests of the Association.” That clause could fit here.
,
I do not understand how you are coming up with your reasoning on the timing. But there is no timing that would have avoided lawsuits, other than going back in time and passing the rule while the 2021 class was still in school.
The players for the class of 2022 that didn't redshirt had exhausted their eligibility in June, 2026. Waiting until October wouldn't change that, but it probably would have prevented the football players from seeking injunctions. Basketball players would still be all over it though.
Your theory about making the rule applicable in 2027 doesn't change anything. If they say the rule starts in 2027, but they will be including the class of 2023, that is EXACTLY what they are already doing. If the class of 23 gets an extra year, it doesnt matter if they say the rule starts now, or starts a year from now.
What you're really saying is they should have included the class of '22 in the new rule. I support their decision to not include players who had exhausted their eligibility....but you do have to be prepared for this litigation nonsense.
They said the vote on the new rule was unanimous, so LSU's President and AD support it. They just have to tell Lane.
The court cannot make LSU play them...but it can make LSU and the SEC pay them if they ultimately win their case. The judge might also hold the NCAA in contempt for letting this happen, but it still cannot force LSU to play them.
So it would have prevented lawsuits from football players. So yes, you still potentially end up with basketball players, unless you do basketball and spring sports at the next quarterly meeting. Not sure how many schools would care enough about any spring sport to litigate over it.
I am not disagreeing with you. All I am saying in this crazy world of college football and lawsuits flying around, all it takes is one judge to rule in your favor and there not be enough time to get it appealed. Nothing surprises me anymore. Old traditions get changed all the time. I would not fall out of my chair if a judge came out and said, "you are a state university, you cannot keep this guy from enrolling and if he is a student he can play football and if some business wants to pay him money the SEC, the NCAA can't keep it from happening" Not saying that will happen but I could see it happening. It is a crazy world in college football.
Last edited:
Exactly. The judge ruling in favor of a former NFL contract signing but cut from the NFL team player cannot force the conference not to enforce these stated rules. So if LSU is okay with Kiffin missing 1/2 the season and paying 50% of their football budget, they can go ahead and honor these stated rules judges ruling. That ruling doesn’t stop the conference from enacting its punishments.
Why can a court stop the NCAA from enforcing its rules, but cannot stop a conference from enforcing its rules? Particularly when the reason the confeRence passed the rule is because the court stopped the NCAA?
I think Rousse will tell Kiffin to stand down so that we don't have to find out how far this can go. But the players will add the SEC to their lawsuit.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White
Mississippi State S Bralan Womack named to Freshman of the Year Watchlist
-
02
Maroon and White
Scouting Ahead: Mississippi State at Texas Q&A
-
03
Maroon and White
2027 RB Christian Alexander sets high bar for senior season
-
04
Maroon and White
Mississippi State adds DL Eddie Kelly Jr. through transfer portal
-
05
Maroon and White
Former MSU players Jahron Manning and Malick Sylla sue NCAA for 2026 eligibility