re: Is the CFP committee the ultimate nuke on NFL players in college ball?

The CFP does not have authority over the United States justice department

quote:

---

if that team is an undefeated SEC school, you think people would buy that excuse?

---

That scenario being LSU is the undefeated team? Or any undefeated SEC team? If LSU is the undefeated team, yeah, they'd have some explaining to do. If Texas is the undefeated team, I think they put them in. It's been talked about so little, I'm not sure the majority of the world even knows Texas has a lineman on the roster that was at two minicamps.

I think the more likely scenario is LSU and Texas both being 10-2 with a head-to-head matchup result, and both teams on the bubble. If Texas wins on 11/14, they have their easy answer. If LSU wins that game, they can say Texas had the better SOS and put them in.

I'd say the best thing LSU can hope for is that more SEC teams in contention add players to make it too difficult for the CFP to do that. A&M just had some major losses, Bama just lost a DL for the season, and Texas dismissed a key LB. Hopefully, they'll try to fill those gaps by using the only available means which is currently this transfer portal window created by the lawsuits.

And please tell us what the CFP can be enjoined from? It is a subjective process when it comes to bids to the CFP. The court has zero authority to influence that body if they decide to blackball NFL-rostered college teams.

The Committee right now is comprised of people tied to:
-Nebraska
-Michigan State/Cincy
-App State
-Utah/Arizona
-Standford
-Auburn/UCF
-South Carolina
-Arizona State

quote:

---

That scenario being LSU is the undefeated team? Or any undefeated SEC team?

---

It's not specifically about LSU, though LSU seems to be the only school currently tied to "NFL" players. Hutson at UT and others are squeaking through that "never signed a contract/never on a roster" gap.

Apparently we're now delineating between "not good enough to make an active roster" and "not good enough to get more than a camp invite" when determining eligibility.

What I think is an interesting legal argument is the line between "professional" league now that revenue sharing is a thing. Anyone who signed a revenue sharing agreement with a school should be barred from transferring into the SEC. NIL could be argued as not being "pay for play" but revenue sharing is nothing but that.

Ultimately, I think this all absurd. I think everyone can agree that signing a professional contract has always been a hard line loss of eligibility, no different than gambling with the Sorsby situation. If everyone agrees that something is a no-no, we (universal, not LSU specific) shouldn't fight so hard to overturn it.

I think the "Protect College Sports Act" should be a simple line of allow the NCAA to create and enforce it's own eligibility rules.

quote:

---

Ultimately, I think this all absurd.

---

Agreed. However, all the pearl clutching and sky screaming outrage is way out of proportion to the uniqueness of the situation. The "what's next, Vince Young coming back to play?" or "This just means any kid can come back anytime they want from now on," people are making strawman arguments.

I'm just along for the ride. We might get brain damage like we're on a 6 Flags rollercoaster, but I'm here for it.

So now you want the courts determining competition as well? Do we get an en banc appeals panel determining seeds?

As a matter of fact, many people are now pointing this out.

Who has taken more of these return NFL players than anyone? Who had them at BR the day after they got released? Don't be stupid.