LSU lawyers are arguing that the SEC and the NCAA are behaving with “cartel-like conduct” (as in the drug lords of Columbia) by disallowing a fifth year to players who have played in the NFL. What ever happened to the concept of ‘governing body’ and ‘student-athletes’? This has got to stop!! Either your a college program that lives by the rules(ish) or you are a river boat gambler who came a shore and called yourself a football program. Maybe the SEC should do like a cartel and take a baseball bat to Lane’s m-f-ing head and the collective, too.
What the….
- Thread starter dog99walker
- Start date
I can see an LSU Alumni who is a Tulane lawyer who is now a judge in Louisiana agreeing with him. Then it goes to the Louisiana Supreme Court, and they put taking it up until after the season is over. Just like Chambliss here in Mississippi. He had the judges in his pocket as well.
They actually have a very good argument. There's no reason to arbitrarily exclude the class of 2022 HS senior from 5-year eligibility when classes before and after get 5 years. And the players would have likely never gone pro if they hadn't believed they had no other options at the time.
I think Manning and Sylla have a good chance of winning their case even if it is a Ole Miss Lawyer who's the judge. That guy might be thinking OLe MIss might be in same situation.
I agree. But it looks like we're giving up on Manning & Sylla since we're bringing the VA Tech guy in. Of course that could all change this afternoon.
The Power 4 Conferences need to encourage the Sunbelt/Pac-12/MWC/CUSA to allow these 5th year players to be eligible, so that they have an option to play elsewhere. That aren't any schools in those conferences that can be a factor in the CFP anyway, so nothing lost.
Crazy world we live in, and it will take it somehow getting to Federal Court to stop the lawsuits.
I actually agreed with this until I saw the actual rule. The rule takes effect in 2027. It is not arbitrary and capricious to set a rule to take place a year in the future, when it requires planning and coordination by the members to manage rosters.
It was still an own goal on their part to not recognize that this was going to happen. Clearly there is no shortage of judges willing to embarrass themselves and the judicial branch and it only takes ones per state for the most part. But as egregious and embarrassing as the Chambliss decision was, this is actually worse. It's perfectly reasonable to take the position that schools need time to plan for rule changes, and to announce a rule that will take place in the future. It's absurd to take the position that there is no rational connection between the rule and the facts or that it's an arbitrary application of a rule to not apply it until it actually takes effect. But it's also absurd to pass a rule without taking into account that at least Auburn, Alabama, LSU, UGA, Ole Miss and probably plenty of other schools will be able to find a judge willing to take an absurd position for them.
It would never stand up to a court challenge. NCAA's plan was to ram it through so late they don't give time to challenge it. Now the conferences are just making up rules ad hoc to try to get around the courts. It's a huge cluster-17. Much easier to just give them the 5-years from the beginning like they did for everyone else.
I finally agree with a Johnson86-1 post!!
NCAA's plan was to pass the rule after everyone who had already played four years had completed their eligibility, so that the NCAA no longer owed them anything. It was only "too late" to challenge with respect to Fall sports...the basketball players have plenty of time to see this through.
I don't know the contract laws of every state, but I think the NCAA has a strong argument their decision was well-reasoned and was in the best interest of its member institutions and current athletes. Does that outweigh leaving former players out of the windfall? I think so...dont know what the courts will ultimately say.
I dont think the NCAA should base its decisions on whether it will get sued. One can always get sued. The question is whether your decision is best for your business and legally defensible.
Rosebowl and Clarion Ledger reporting the WV defensive lineman transferring in (pending potential court challenges). I'm assuming this means we're giving up on Sylla and Manning in accordance with the SEC's announcement yesterday. And knowing Mississippi State, you know we're not going to challenge them on it.
What wouldn't stand up to a court challenge? If the courts applied the law, the current rule allowing players to have 5 years to play 5 starting in 2027 would 100% be upheld without injunction. Organizations are entitled to change their rules. The justification to have it apply one year in the future so teams can manage their rosters is perfectly rational. Organizations aren't required to make the best decision or even good decisions. As long as their is a rational argument, they are good if the law is applied.
The NCAA's mistake was that they didn't take into account that judges are no longer even really pretending to apply the law in NCAA eligibility cases. They should have had discussions in the quarterly meeting they voted on. They should have broadcast it as a possibility. Then they should have voted on it in the October meeting. Or even January if they wanted to avoid the hopefully unlikely risk that teams would try to add 5th year players in November. Then it's irrelevant whether judges want to ignore the law. Season is almost over or completely over. If judges tried to extend players from the past a 5th year of eligibility just because they played four years in the first four years after college, that maybe can't be avoided, but at some point there is probably a limit to the lack of shame.
Yeah I knew about the transfer but Sylla & Manning filed in Oktibbeha County yesterday so I doubt we're giving up on them.
The rule unfairly infringes on the players rights to earn a living by arbitrarily discriminating against them. NCAA's mistake was the didn't adopt the 5-year rule a year earlier and apply it to everyone. All problems would have been avoided.
So what will it take to create a league similar to the NFL but for "student athletes" where the league can enforce its rules without outside meddling? Is it an antitrust exemption? Surely something is possible otherwise we wouldn't have professional sports leagues with the ability to enforce rules.
I think when the Federal legislation passes and becomes law, whatever it is, it will clear most all of this up. And a lot of it will go away on it's own next year when players will no longer be able to claim they're unfairly denied a 5th year eligibility.
That's not the test if they are applying the law.
They have to win on an antitrust argument if they are taking that position. That's a much harder thing to do. To my knowledge all of the state court decisions are being issued under an arbitrary and capricious (or really breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing) argument.
The nationwide injunction that the 10th circuit stayed was based in antitrust, but it was stayed presumably because the 10th circuit found the NCAA was likely to win on the merits, as I would assume the players could show irreparable harm otherwise.
Unfortunately, the 10th Circuit did not articulate a clear reason for staying the injunction. The two page order just listed the factors it considers, and said the NCAA had met its burden.
Tom Mars clerked at the 10th Circuit, and he said that Court really does not like PIs except to preserve the status quo.
Fact:
The rules changed on these young men after they had no other option but to pursue their next stage which is a professional one. That option obviously didn’t pan out and now they’re being punished because the old rules gave them no other option. With the new 5-for-5 rule, they should be granted an exemption to the professional signing rule. Allow the young men to further pursue their education and hone their craft a little better.
The rules changed on these young men after they had no other option but to pursue their next stage which is a professional one. That option obviously didn’t pan out and now they’re being punished because the old rules gave them no other option. With the new 5-for-5 rule, they should be granted an exemption to the professional signing rule. Allow the young men to further pursue their education and hone their craft a little better.
Unless LSU is careful, they are going to wake up one day, maybe sooner as opposed to later...and no one is going to want to have anything to do with them. They are doing to their 'damndest' to turn everyone against them. If this has already been mentioned...my apologies, but I read where LSU had abstained from voting on the penalties the SEC is going to impose on a school for not following the rules on professional athletes. One has to wonder why...?
Also Fact:
If these athletes are not good enough for a professional career after 4 seasons of playing in college, a 5th season is not going to make a difference. If they have a valid claim against the NCAA - and I don't think they do - monetary damages should suffice.
Hopefully he'll get confused because it's a Manning and rule in his favor.
Once everyone realized that this was a loophole and it is only for that one group of players for only this one year, they should have let it go as it would never happen again. In the back of my mind, I can only think that if Alabama or Ohio State was involved this is the way it would have gone.
Agreed. But now it will probably lead to a challenge of the 5 for 5 rule.
The NCAA simply cannot mess shlt up any more than they have done. They are pitiful. From timing to the hills they choose to die on.
The bolded red comment is funny to me because while yeah I agree programs should follow the rules, your comment even acknowledges that its rules...ish. There has been so much wiggle room these last 5 years, both above the table and under the table, that basically everything is negotiable now.
Setting a starting year for a rule change is frequently arbitrary. There can be reasoning given, but arguing others should be included is common.
Taking this out of athletics, its the reality for things like taxes and incentive programs which pay off student debt, among other examples.
To be clear, had they included the 2022 class, I wouldnt have thought twice. Sure- include em, why not.
I just dont love the idea of winning a legal argument by arguing its unfar- 'people before us got 5 years because of this one exception that had established limited applicability, and people after us get 5 years because of this rule change'.
There are about 190,000 D1 athletes.
The vast majority of even D1 athletes arent going pro after college whether they play 4 or 5 seasons. There are some who are good enough to be considered but not last, and even most of them wont change their prospects with another college season of play.
Benefits of them playing in college for another year...
- they can stay and work towards a degree(or multiple) for free for another year.
- they can capitalize on NIL for another season and help set them up to be in a better financial position after college.
- experiences/memories.
Yeah, I guess monetary damages would largely cover the first two mentioned reasons. But instead of forcing the NCAA to pay out the unearned value of all the college tuition and NIL opportunities, the players could just play.
We are talking about preliminary injunctions, which are an usual remedy, only permissible where the harm is "irreperable" by monetary damage. Granted, you cannot replace participation in a college season of your sport, but you can be financially compensated.
The NCAA has already decided it would rather face the possibility of paying those financial damages than let these players take the place of other eligible players.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White
1-on-1: Mississippi State's emerging leaders on both sides of the ball
-
02
Maroon and White
Mississippi State Preseason Camp Takeaways
-
03
Maroon and White
Mississippi State Baseball adds Jackson, Tenn. fall exhibition date
-
04
Maroon and White
Jahron Manning begins search for new team
-
05
Maroon and White
Knowns and Unknowns for Mississippi State as football season approaches