And here come the lawsuits regarding eligibility...

Dawgzilla2 said:

Essentially two theories, although im sure there are others, but the courts are generally relying on fairness and reasonableness.

Not saying I agree with the decisions, but here's how the courts asserted authority:

Diego Pavia successfully argued the NCAA was violating anti trust laws by counting his JUCO years against his NCAA eligibility. The NCAA does not count other types of post High School competition against NCAA eligibility (foreign leagues, finishing school types of leagues, etc.), but discriminated against JUCO players limiting their development and earning potential.

Chambliss, Bediako, and Sorsby did not directly ochallenge the NCAA's eligibility rules, but instead argued the league was not applying its own exceptions or disciplinary rules consistently and fairly. They claimed that was a breach of the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing.

None of these players has actually won their underlying case yet (maybe Pavia has, Im not sure) but instead were granted preliminary injunctions to avoid the irreparable harm from being denied a year of participation....apparently without consideration of the irreparable harm to the other players in the league who have to play against - or sit the bench behind - a player who was ruled ineligible. (That ladt bit is my editorial).

I dont think the players who are suing to be included in the new 5 for 5 rule are suffering irreparable harm. They clearly are not good enough to play professionally, or else they would already be doing that. They are missing out on a bonus year of play, but that is not "irreperable"; you can put a price on it.

Click to expand...

maroonmania said:

Still not following. The Sorsby case was so black and white its not even worth discussing. Chambliss claimed a "medical" redshirt in a year he didn't play without ANY documented evidence that he had any injury or illness. His former school even affirmed that he was fully able to play but just wasn't ready to play. Again, pretty open and shut. Pretty much any player that provides medical documentation of an injury or illness that prevents a player from playing is granted a medical redshirt but Chambliss was denied twice by the NCAA because he had no case. OM had always planned for him to be a 1 year backup to Simmons until they realized what they had.

Click to expand...

maroonmania said:

Still not following. The Sorsby case was so black and white its not even worth discussing. Chambliss claimed a "medical" redshirt in a year he didn't play without ANY documented evidence that he had any injury or illness. His former school even affirmed that he was fully able to play but just wasn't ready to play. Again, pretty open and shut. Pretty much any player that provides medical documentation of an injury or illness that prevents a player from playing is granted a medical redshirt but Chambliss was denied twice by the NCAA because he had no case. OM had always planned for him to be a 1 year backup to Simmons until they realized what they had.

Click to expand...

thatsbaseball said:

What am I leaving out here ? The players are united and making $$$, the conferences are united and making $$$, the networks are making $$$ and ALL are prospering except the dumbass (supposedly mostly educated) boosters seeing who can outdo each other by throwing their money around and not getting them 1 penny return on investment .

Click to expand...