At what point do we see players suing for permanent eligibility?

I want to say you're being ridiculous and blowing things out of proportion, but at this point I honestly don't know where this circus will end.

Those arguments have already been floated in court proceedings, but that level of relief has yet to be sought. The NCAA is losing these cases because of ambiguity in the rules and inconsistent application of the ambiguous rules. Some guys get waivers.... some don't. The rule applies to some class of players...but not all.

5 for 5 is trying to change that (emphasis on "trying"). No redshirts. No waivers. Simply just 5 years of eligibility regardless of if you don't play or miss the better part of 4 years due to injury. The counter argument to the professional college player argument is that it restricts graduating HS seniors. Fewer teams are going to want to pay significant money to an 18 year old with no college experience, or sign a large number of them to the roster, when it can have a roster of 26, 27, 28 year olds 6, 7, 8 year vets.

At what point do High Schoolers start suing when there are no spots left for them to go?

Some of these judges need to start telling these guys to take a hike. Sorry, it's getting ridiculous (even if it favors us sometimes).

quote:

---

This is the only way any of this ends. For years the NCAA acted like a governmental body with power to set and enforce rules, and people just kind of accepted it. (In fact, 115 years ago Teddy Roosevelt basically ordered the colleges to form the NCAA's precursor, or he was going to shut the whole thing down, so initially it did have this sort of intangible governmental aura). In 1984 the Supreme Court pointed out that this wasn't actually true in Oklahoma v. NCAA. Once that ruling came out, the writing was on the wall. If anything, it's surprising that it's taken 40 years for the whole thing to reach its logical conclusion.

---

It actually seems odd to me that it took so long to apply the logic from the Board of Regents case in 1984 to now. The Bloom case was a major setback but also a catalyst for the recent cases that brought us here now.
If a pro player wanted to sign a 7 year contract to play for LSU the NCAA would be powerless to stop it from happening.

Only two things change this present course. A CBA or an act from Congress. The first one is littered with its own complications and there is a scenario where public universities in Texas and Alabama would not legally be able to field football teams. Let that sink in.

quote:

---

mean, I've long thought that as long as you were a student - you HAVE to be a student...then you should be able to play for however long you want. Therefore, frick it, get 5 degrees and park your arse there.

---

Being enrolled in school is the only enforceable boundary according to multiple legal academics.

quote:

---

Some of these judges need to start telling these guys to take a hike. Sorry, it's getting ridiculous (even if it favors us sometimes).

---

At this point that’s the equivalent of saying this whole capitalism thing just sucks and needs to be trashed. The legal doctrine for this abolishment of eligibility rules is based on the very notion of free trade.

At that point, the NFL will use its lobbying power to rein this foolishness in. If permanent eligibility is granted, college football becomes a de facto professional league in direct competition with The Shield.

When NIL first started, there were multiple voices making the case for the argument you have mentioned. The rational was as an "employee", one is not limited simply by the number of years served. I taught in multiple universities and graduation rates are computed on six year averages for federal compliance purposes. As was mentioned in a previous post in this thread, if one condition of employment is being a "student in good academic standing", why should athletic eligibility apply an arbitrary rule that disenfranchises the "student athletes."

You don't think the NFL has some serious clout on Capitol Hill?