Eligibility: someone explain it to me clearly

The NCAA rule says that if a player signs a contract or any kind of commitment to play professional athletics, then they are no longer eligible.

But the 5 for 5 was ruled in, I believe, June of 2026. Which is why these players are suing because they were forced out due to 4 years but after they left NCAA went to 5 year eligibility.

There’s no difference anymore between a professional or collegiate athlete. A professional player is compensated for participating in athletics, which NIL is making a collegiate athlete fit that definition.

Agree 100%

Go to an NFL camp:
Eligible

Go to an NFL camp and sign a contract:
Not Eligible

Brand new rule made up AFTER they found out that Wright committed to LSU and not the other SEC schools recruiting him, namely Ole Miss.

Evidently a signature is the difference between having a competitive advantage over those who didn’t sign and a signature is taking away opportunities from other players because it’s not taking away opportunities if you didn’t sign a piece of paper. It’s also ok to play 6 and 7 years and that’s not taking away opportunity from younger players. Just if you signed a piece of paper.

quote:

---

The 5 for 5 had a start date, It does not apply to those who were there before it was implemented. Just like anything else. Just because you change a rule you can’t go back retroactively to apply. This breeds chaos. Unless you’re that Ole Miss QB that stays as long as he likes.

---

Exactly . . . too bad the local courts aren't don't see it that way like the Feds have.

And Chambliss is the reason for the new rule.

quote:

---

Historically it has been if you entered your name in the NFL Draft you were deemed ineligible.

---

Did these players act on their on are did they have agents. I remember even talking to an agent sealed your fate.

The “signed contract” vs. no signature distinction was inserted last week after Wright committed to LSU.

Before the 5 for 5 rule it was always once you declared for the NFL draft and didn’t withdraw, you were ineligible.

Now you can declare, go undrafted, attend and participate in mini camps and come back if you didn’t sign a contract. But if you sign a contract and still get cut, you can’t come back. Even if you never played a snap of NFL football.

Ultimately the NCAA said these ALL of these guys could come back and play their 5th year.

The power 4 conferences said they can only play in their conference if they didn’t sign a contract. Big 10 came up with the rule 1st, then the SEC and eventually the Big 12 and ACC. This all happened this week.

quote:

---

Brand new rule made up AFTER they found Wright committed to LSU

We’re absolutely sure of that? I’m just trying to have as much factual ammunition as possible. I’m in the middle of an argument with a couple of Big 10 assholes

---

Yes, depending on how you define "committed."

On Aug 19th, Pyburn, Wright, et al., received a TRO against the NCAA.

Wright was cut by the Browns on Aug 23rd and every news article said he was going to LSU if he cleared waivers (which he did on Aug 31).

The SEC voted on rule on Aug 25 and published it on Aug 26.

On Aug 27th, the plaintiffs requested SEC be added to TRO and judge issue subpoena to the SEC to appear and explain why they should not be included.

On Sep 3rd, the the LA judge granted a preliminary injunction against NCAA, SEC, & LSU. Also that day, the SEC sued LSU & Kiffin, et al., in federal court in AL.

So, it's clear that the SEC wrote the rule based on the widespread reporting that Wright was headed to LSU.

Hope that helps.

GEAUX TIGERS!

quote:

---

Ultimately the NCAA said these ALL of these guys could come back and play their 5th year.

---

This is not factually correct. In fact the NCAA fought them in court to keep them from coming back and are in eligible according to 5 for 5 rule. The courts are letting them back not the NCAA.

The "new rule" is more lenient than the old rules. The new rule was essentially redefined to say this where we are circumventing TROs or Injunctions. They also know this is the line where they will win in the court of public opinion.

We saw this with Sorensby and Tex Tech but no one complained (except for the T Tech message board) when the Big 12 "made new rules" to circumvent the TROs.

The Big 10 and the other conferences made the "new rule" as well. The only difference is ALL of their members fell in line and LSU said frick it lets GEAUX!

Ok, just that point: the rule has been for a long time that if a college player declares and then signs a contract to play in the pros, he is ineligible.

Ok, as of June the NCAA changed the eligibility rule from 4 years eligibility plus a red shirt, excluding injury to,....5 years of eligibility in 5 years. Beginning and starting with the class of 2023. Which is 4 years retro. Players from the 2022 class sued and have clearance to play as a stay to the court preliminary injunction stopping them issued in the first round in court.

So the turning pro rule is challenged along with (because of) the 2023 starting time and is part of the latest stay. Some of the class of 2022 are claiming opportunity loss, due to these players declaring because they thought they were out of eligibility. (This is a major point of contention by other programs and the SEC in general).

Those are the basics of the initial rule changes. I'm not explaining all the other lawsuits or potential lawsuits.