Why would UK or LSU vote for this? The Sankey news nobody seems to be talking about?

[ScWildcat3]

I want Mitchell to be eligible but I don’t think it is an arbitrary decision. Mitchell played under the old rule and exhausted his eligibility. The new rule came into existence after Mitchell exhausted his eligibility.

People can disagree as to what would be fair but it is not arbitrary to have the new rule only apply to students who have not exhausted their eligibility. It’s a choice, whether others think it fair or not.

I believe the rule applies to Hawthorne. Under the new rule, he could have played last season and still had 4 more to play. Under the new rule, because it starts after his RS season, he only gets to compete for 4 years. Is it fair? Debatable. But it is not arbitrary. There is a reason. The NCAA decided not to grandfather in those who exhausted their eligibility under the old rules.

Hawthorne either way still gets 4 more years.

 

[CatBearPig]

I don’t understand why people care. College sports are getting better. If you don’t like the off season drama, don’t pay attention to it. This is closer to the product 30 years ago with more seniors playing. Everyone complained when it was a bunch of young guys and the product stunk. Now it’s better and people are complaining even more.

 

[Beatle Bum]

You are missing the point. Baseball players go into the draft and get drafted then decide to go back to school and are eligible. These 22’ kids if they knew had another season would’ve returned to school and not gone into the draft. They didn’t know and couldn’t withdraw so they went through the process. Once it was determined to give kids 5 years ncaa should’ve said they can return regardless of if drafted or not.

The analogy still fails. The ‘22 kids were out of eligibility. You can say “if they knew,” but the NCAA has stated clearly that the 5 for 5 rule does not apply to them. Courts have changed that, perhaps only temporarily, but saying what you or I would do as the NCAA is irrelevant.

NCAA changed the rules after the fact and now want to punish the players for not having all the information that is out there now.

I am sure the NCAA does not see it as punishment. The NCAA views them as ineligible by rule (they rule they played under). Had the NCAA made them eligible under the new rule but acted like the players needed to be prescient and avoid accepting an NBA or NFL draft, then it would seem like punishment for what they could not have known. But it remains, to my knowledge, the NCAA’s position that whether they were drafted or not, they are ineligible

NCAA knew they were screwing the 22 kids and now don’t want to own up to it. If they aren’t on an official pro roster then just let them return. Simple as that.

It’s a valid opinion. It’s just not the only valid opinion.

It’s like changing the rules of a game after the final whistle and then penalizing the team for not playing by rules that didn’t exist when the game was played

Disagree.

 

[Rick Honcho]

I’m among those who don’t want pros (including summer camp pros) coming back to college to play for LSU, Indiana, UK or anyone else. Go overseas or to Canada. Or God forbid, get a real job earning a real paycheck.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Hawthorne either way still gets 4 more years.

Yes. BUT, he could have actually competed last year and he would have and now he gets only 5 to play 4 when the new rule gives 5 to play 5.

 

[ScWildcat3]

The analogy still fails. The ‘22 kids were out of eligibility. You can say “if they knew,” but the NCAA has stated clearly that the 5 for 5 rule does not apply to them. Courts have changed that, perhaps only temporarily, but saying what you or I would do as the NCAA is irrelevant.



I am sure the NCAA does not see it as punishment. The NCAA views them as ineligible by rule (they rule they played under). Had the NCAA made them eligible under the new rule but acted like the players needed to be prescient and avoid accepting an NBA or NFL draft, then it would seem like punishment for what they could not have known. But it remains, to my knowledge, the NCAA’s position that whether they were drafted or not, they are ineligible


It’s a valid opinion. It’s just not the only valid opinion.


Disagree.

And the courts are saying they are eligible so the sec and big ten now are changing the rules again to get the outcome they want. That’s the point. The NCAA already lost basically so the conferences are trying to go rogue and change the narrative again. That’s what the lawyers are going to have a field day with.

 

[ScWildcat3]

Yes. BUT, he could have actually competed last year and he would have and now he gets only 5 to play 4 when the new rule gives 5 to play 5.

He still has 4 to play 4. Whether he played last year or not doesn’t change that. The ncaa knew what they was doing waiting as long as they did. They had the 5 for 5 in the works and delayed it to get the 22 kids out of school then passed it. They could’ve easily sent out a memo and told them it was coming and for those wishing to utilize it to take that into account as far as signing anything.

 

[Beatle Bum]

And the courts are saying they are eligible so the sec and big ten now are changing the rules again to get the outcome they want. That’s the point. The NCAA already lost basically so the conferences are trying to go rogue and change the narrative again. That’s what the lawyers are going to have a field day with.

I am not sure the lawyers for the players will win. They have had a short term victory in some jurisdictions. Courts of appeal have already overturned some of those rulings. Time will tell.

 

[Beatle Bum]

He still has 4 to play 4. Whether he played last year or not doesn’t change that. The ncaa knew what they was doing waiting as long as they did. They had the 5 for 5 in the works and delayed it to get the 22 kids out of school then passed it. They could’ve easily sent out a memo and told them it was coming and for those wishing to utilize it to take that into account as far as signing anything.

He lost the ability to play 5 for 5 just like the graduating seniors lost the ability to play 5 for 5.

 

[ala_kat2]

I don’t understand why people care. College sports are getting better. If you don’t like the off season drama, don’t pay attention to it. This is closer to the product 30 years ago with more seniors playing. Everyone complained when it was a bunch of young guys and the product stunk. Now it’s better and people are complaining even more.

Because now it’s up to lawyers and courts. That’s the problem.

 

[ScWildcat3]

I am not sure the lawyers for the players will win. They have had a short term victory in some jurisdictions. Courts of appeal have already overturned some of those rulings. Time will tell.

Nobody knows that’s for sure. That’s the problem. The ncaa is trying to fight this when they could easily just say 22 is eligible and move on. Why keep wasting money and time just to have a measuring contest?

 

[ScWildcat3]

He lost the ability to play 5 for 5 just like the graduating seniors lost the ability to play 5 for 5.

Like you said with the 22 kids. You don’t know for sure he would’ve played. He was injured most the year and then when he was gearing up to maybe play got injured again. The main argument is they have all the covid ppl and extra year. They have given extra years for horrible reasons but they draw the line at one outgoing class because they don’t want to admit they made a bad judgement. I mean what kid is in his 9th year this year.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Like you said with the 22 kids. You don’t know for sure he would’ve played. He was injured most the year and then when he was gearing up to maybe play got injured again. The main argument is they have all the covid ppl and extra year. They have given extra years for horrible reasons but they draw the line at one outgoing class because they don’t want to admit they made a bad judgement. I mean what kid is in his 9th year this year.

He was not injured most of the year. He was injured in the latter part when Pope was considering dropping the RS. I can guarantee that Hawthorne would have played in at least one game, probably many, last season had he been under the 5 for 5.

I have no problem with there being no grandfather clause for seniors who exhausted their eligibility. Now, if that is an anti trust violation, idk.

 

[ScWildcat3]

He was not injured most of the year. He was injured in the latter part when Pope was considering dropping the RS. I can guarantee that Hawthorne would have played in at least one game, probably many, last season had he been under the 5 for 5.

I have no problem with there being no grandfather clause for seniors who exhausted their eligibility. Now, if that is an anti trust violation, idk.

Just as you guaranteed that without actually knowing I can guarantee Mitchell and Kohler and others would’ve played another year of college ball for what they would’ve been offered. I don’t have a problem with the new rule at all. I have a problem with when they finally put into effect trying to game the system by the timing.

 

[Cats192]

He was not injured most of the year. He was injured in the latter part when Pope was considering dropping the RS. I can guarantee that Hawthorne would have played in at least one game, probably many, last season had he been under the 5 for 5.

I have no problem with there being no grandfather clause for seniors who exhausted their eligibility. Now, if that is an anti trust violation, idk.

Right. It doesn't affect you.

But if you were one of those players--and this was your last chance to make big time $$, you would care. If this was your child, you would care.

It would be fine if the NCAA had a good, compelling reason to omit the class of 2022. But they said in court--it was going to create a larger administrative burden (I.E. It was more work for them).

The NCAA has also argued that giving these players a 5th year would take away playing time and opportunities from players that are already allowed in college under the current rules. This would be a good argument. However, seeing as previous classes got 5 years, the players in question were losing minutes and opportunities to 5th year players.

If NIL didn't exist, none of this would matter, and no one would care. But since it does, it's a MAJOR case of financial harm to each athlete.

 

[ScWildcat3]

Right. It doesn't affect you.

But if you were one of those players--and this was your last chance to make big time $$, you would care. If this was your child, you would care.

It would be fine if the NCAA had a good, compelling reason to omit the class of 2022. But they said in court--it was going to create a larger administrative burden (I.E. It was more work for them).

The NCAA has also argued that giving these players a 5th year would take away playing time and opportunities from players that are already allowed in college under the current rules. This would be a good argument. However, seeing as previous classes got 5 years, the players in question were losing minutes and opportunities to 5th year players.

If NIL didn't exist, none of this would matter, and no one would care. But since it does, it's a MAJOR case of financial harm to each athlete.

Couldn’t have said it better. Their argument for why they excluded them makes zero sense because for football they increased the roster numbers and basketball there is plenty of teams to accommodate the extra players.

 

[catsarecool1447]

Mitchell played for the Nuggets in the summer league. Why is that different than playing a preseason NFL game?

You really need this explained to you?

 

[ScWildcat3]

You really need this explained to you?

Haha that guy thinks summer league and preseason is same thing? Does he know nba has a preseason as well. Summer league is nfl version of a rookie minicamp basically.

 

[NociHTTP]

Right. It doesn't affect you.

But if you were one of those players--and this was your last chance to make big time $$, you would care. If this was your child, you would care.

It would be fine if the NCAA had a good, compelling reason to omit the class of 2022. But they said in court--it was going to create a larger administrative burden (I.E. It was more work for them).

The NCAA has also argued that giving these players a 5th year would take away playing time and opportunities from players that are already allowed in college under the current rules. This would be a good argument. However, seeing as previous classes got 5 years, the players in question were losing minutes and opportunities to 5th year players.

If NIL didn't exist, none of this would matter, and no one would care. But since it does, it's a MAJOR case of financial harm to each athlete.

It's collegiate athletics, full stop. Let them go earn a paycheck elsewhere, just like everyone else has to do. Anyone with genuine concern for the sport doesn't want these players back. It's noble of you to want so badly for them to make money in college sports, but that's not what the system was for.

 

[TFCat11]

Mitchell played for the Nuggets in the summer league. Why is that different than playing a preseason NFL game?

Summer League is not NBA preseason. Two TOTALLY different sets of games, rules, and contracts.

 

[PastorofMuppets82]

It's collegiate athletics, full stop. Let them go earn a paycheck elsewhere, just like everyone else has to do. Anyone with genuine concern for the sport doesn't want these players back. It's noble of you to want so badly for them to make money in college sports, but that's not what the system was for.

So it's cool for the NCAA, SEC, Television Networks, Bookstores, Fan Duel, Facility Owners, Beer Companies, Clothing companies, Athletic Directors, Board Members, etc, etc, etc, to make money off my child who wants to play a college sport they love. But GOD FORBID my kid wants some compensation for someone making money off of them.

They jumped the NIL shark by making it unregulated. They "could" have said, athletes are allowed to paid X percentage of sales of merchandise bearing their Name, Image or Likeness. They get X dollars for autograph signing sessions, X dollars for a TV commercial, X dollars for hosting a clinic, etc. But nope, that's not what we got. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Congress literally took whatever system you think college sports is supposed to be and erased it. That college sports sadly isn't coming back no matter how much anyone cries about the good old days.

 

[TeamAmerica]

You are missing the point. Baseball players go into the draft and get drafted then decide to go back to school and are eligible. These 22’ kids if they knew had another season would’ve returned to school and not gone into the draft. They didn’t know and couldn’t withdraw so they went through the process. Once it was determined to give kids 5 years ncaa should’ve said they can return regardless of if drafted or not.

NCAA changed the rules after the fact and now want to punish the players for not having all the information that is out there now. NCAA knew they were screwing the 22 kids and now don’t want to own up to it. If they aren’t on an official pro roster then just let them return. Simple as that.

It’s like changing the rules of a game after the final whistle and then penalizing the team for not playing by rules that didn’t exist when the game was played

The difference is nobody declares for the MLB draft. Players become eligible automatically based on age and class standing rather than by filling out paperwork to enter.

 

[Cats192]

It's collegiate athletics, full stop. Let them go earn a paycheck elsewhere, just like everyone else has to do. Anyone with genuine concern for the sport doesn't want these players back. It's noble of you to want so badly for them to make money in college sports, but that's not what the system was for.

No. The system had ALWAYS been in place to make money. Just for the NCAA, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, universities, etc.

but you’re kidding yourself if you think the system hasn’t always been about money

 

[TeamAmerica]

He still has 4 to play 4. Whether he played last year or not doesn’t change that. The ncaa knew what they was doing waiting as long as they did. They had the 5 for 5 in the works and delayed it to get the 22 kids out of school then passed it. They could’ve easily sent out a memo and told them it was coming and for those wishing to utilize it to take that into account as far as signing anything.

I think what he is trying to argue is if Hawthorne had known about the rule he would not have redshirt and played, so why should he not get the year back since you can play for 5 years now?

 

[ScWildcat3]

The difference is nobody declares for the MLB draft. Players become eligible automatically based on age and class standing rather than by filling out paperwork to enter.

And none of these 22 kids declared either. It’s the same with international players.

 

[ScWildcat3]

I think what he is trying to argue is if Hawthorne had known about the rule he would not have redshirt and played, so why should he not get the year back since you can play for 5 years now?

Hawthorne wasn’t never going to play until late in season and he got injured so it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. He was nowhere close to ready and was always his plan to sit and get bigger knowing he wasn’t ready.

 

[TarHeelInCharlotte]

And none of these 22 kids declared either. It’s the same with international players.

The few "reporters" who kept insisting yesterday that these '22 kids were ineligible because they didn't pull their names from the draft... well those reporters just exposed how little they actually know about the game they cover. It's frustrating when you realize how dumb some sports reporters are.

 

[preacherfan]

Seriously, anyone who voted for that is a complete moron. I once experienced the leadership of a religious non-profit organization trying to pull one of these types of shenanigans. Enough of us opposed it to keep it from happening. So, the SEC schools now want a dictator/king/whatever to "enforce" the rules? Choosing Sankey is about as dumb as it gets besides all the other issues it will create.

 

[ScWildcat3]

Seriously, anyone who voted for that is a complete moron. I once experienced the leadership of a religious non-profit organization trying to pull one of these types of shenanigans. Enough of us opposed it to keep it from happening. So, the SEC schools now want a dictator/king/whatever to "enforce" the rules? Choosing Sankey is about as dumb as it gets besides all the other issues it will create.

I almost think they did it so they can argue that exact point. That sankey is strong arming the league members. I have a feeling there is more behind the scenes to why they agreed to it.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Right. It doesn't affect you.

But if you were one of those players--and this was your last chance to make big time $$, you would care. If this was your child, you would care.

It only impacts me like it impacts other fans. I want Mitchell and Afari playing for the Cats. But, that does not mean a new rule without a grandfather clause is inherently evil. Wanting to make more money is understandable. It does not mean the NCAA is evil or being unfair. It means the player has a pecuniary interest. Nothing more.

It would be fine if the NCAA had a good, compelling reason to omit the class of 2022. But they said in court--it was going to create a larger administrative burden (I.E. It was more work for them).

You can think this meaningless, if that is what was reported, but your disagreement is meaningless. You have an opinion. Great. Everyone seems to.

The NCAA has also argued that giving these players a 5th year would take away playing time and opportunities from players that are already allowed in college under the current rules. This would be a good argument. However, seeing as previous classes got 5 years, the players in question were losing minutes and opportunities to 5th year players.

If NIL didn't exist, none of this would matter, and no one would care. But since it does, it's a MAJOR case of financial harm to each athlete.

It’s only “harm” if there is wrongdoing. If the case can be made that this is truly an anti trust violation, good. If not, it’s no more harm to you as it is to the players.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Just as you guaranteed that without actually knowing I can guarantee Mitchell and Kohler and others would’ve played another year of college ball for what they would’ve been offered.

Where did anyone dispute that?

 

[Beatle Bum]

Haha that guy thinks summer league and preseason is same thing? Does he know nba has a preseason as well. Summer league is nfl version of a rookie minicamp basically.

I bet he does know the difference. The question is why the difference matters. It’s professional ball for a professional organization on the SEC list.

 

[Beatle Bum]

And none of these 22 kids declared either. It’s the same with international players.

It’s really not the same, as the SEC defined the criteria. And, every college baseball player who returned after being drafted was drafted while they still had remaining eligibility. None of the seniors in the NBA draft had remaining eligibility.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Hawthorne wasn’t never going to play until late in season and he got injured so it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. He was nowhere close to ready and was always his plan to sit and get bigger knowing he wasn’t ready.

not true but even if true, so what? He would have played when healthy in the normal bench circumstances. Why does your characterization of his readiness matter?

 

[ScWildcat3]

It’s really not the same, as the SEC defined the criteria. And, every college baseball player who returned after being drafted was drafted while they still had remaining eligibility. None of the seniors in the NBA draft had remaining eligibility.

Yea they said nba or g league roster. Summer league isn’t part of it.

 

[ScWildcat3]

not true but even if true, so what? He would have played when healthy in the normal bench circumstances. Why does your characterization of his readiness matter?

If he would’ve played it would’ve been worse than Jasper.

 

[ScWildcat3]

It’s really not the same, as the SEC defined the criteria. And, every college baseball player who returned after being drafted was drafted while they still had remaining eligibility. None of the seniors in the NBA draft had remaining eligibility.

But they didn’t formally withdraw.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Yea they said nba or g league roster. Summer league isn’t part of it.

I think it would be had Mitchell signed, but I like you read the LHL article.

If Mitchell is deemed ineligible, heads here will explode. The angst is already on 10.

 

[Beatle Bum]

If he would’ve played it would’ve been worse than Jasper.

Sure.

 

[Beatle Bum]

But they didn’t formally withdraw.

They did not declare. It’s not the same. Find another argument.