- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is this really a 1 time deal?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:13 am
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:13 am
Say in the future a Harold Perkins-type player decides to go "pro" after his junior year. He doesn't make a roster. Decides he wants to return to college and make some NIL money and avoid the "real world." IF..... this ruling holds up what prevents this from happening? Hell, he could do this again the following year as well. IF.... the premise for this entire argument is these guys did not have opportunity to stay in college b/c the 5-for-5 rule was passed after they decided to go "pro" then that makes sense IMHO. However, unless it's spelled out I see this as a slippery slope and another hot mess for college sports. Rantards - enlighten me please.
Geaux Tigers!
Geaux Tigers!
17
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:15 am to DrD
The only reason these 5/5 injunctions are happening are because the NCAA put the 5/5 rule in place after the players declared. Next year no player can argue they didn’t know they would have an additional year of eligibility
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:16 am to DrD
I think going forward if you leave your eligibility clock ends.
The reason it’s happening this year is because they didn’t announce the 5th year until after the draft. It didn’t give those guys an option.
The reason it’s happening this year is because they didn’t announce the 5th year until after the draft. It didn’t give those guys an option.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:19 am to DrD
truthfully, I dont even see a problem with them testing the waters and coming back if the valuations dont work out. Similar to baseball players and "leverage" scenarios.
There definitely needs to be a red line rule somewhere, clear as day, equally applied to everyone always. But, here we are...
There definitely needs to be a red line rule somewhere, clear as day, equally applied to everyone always. But, here we are...
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:19 am to DrD
It should be a one time thing. It doesn't mean guys won't try in the future, but their arguments will be much softer and unlikely to move forward.
Even if you consider that everyone is judge shopping, the current cases still have some leg to stand on.
After this year, I'm not sure they will.
Even if you consider that everyone is judge shopping, the current cases still have some leg to stand on.
After this year, I'm not sure they will.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:20 am to DrD
quote:
The only reason these 5/5 injunctions are happening are because the NCAA put the 5/5 rule in place after the players declared.
This.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
And if there is antitrust litigation that spills out of these players being denied eligibility, then LSU has certainly cleared itself of being involved as a defendent in those cases. Can't say that for the SEC.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 9:25 am
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:21 am to DrD
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:24 am to wildtigercat93
quote:
The only reason these 5/5 injunctions are happening are because the NCAA put the 5/5 rule in place after the players declared. Next year no player can argue they didn’t know they would have an additional year of eligibility
This
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:26 am to wildtigercat93
quote:
The only reason these 5/5 injunctions are happening are because the NCAA put the 5/5 rule in place after the players declared. Next year no player can argue they didn’t know they would have an additional year of eligibility
This is easy to say. But eventually someone will try to argue that 5 years is arbitrary. Why 5 for 5? Why not 6 for 6? I obviously agree with you that the NCAA screwed up with the timing of the rule and again by not grandfathering in the 2022 class.
But if they are forced by the courts to do just that, that’s just another blow to their authority and ability to implement and enforce rules. Which would empower some ambitious lawyer/agent/player to challenge the 5 for 5 at some point. I just think, with everything we’ve seen the past 5-6 years, saying this is “a 1 time thing” is kinda naive.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:28 am to DrD
Massive difference between choosing to leave early and go pro vs leaving because you are out of eligiblity
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:28 am to Hot Carl
quote:
This is easy to say. But eventually someone will try to argue that 5 years is arbitrary. Why 5 for 5? Why not 6 for 6? I obviously agree with you that the NCAA screwed up with the timing of the rule and again by not grandfathering in the 2022 class.
I’m not saying this is the last eligibility lawsuit that will happen or other things may be argued, my post and the OP is specifically about the 5/5 issue and the reason these TROs are getting made. This specially is an issue created by the NCAAs timing on the 5/5 rule and their arbitrary enforcement of it. That is a one time issue.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:32 am to DrD
My guess is no. Think of possible loopholes. A kid leaves early and gets cut by the NFL in training camp after leaving college within 3 years. He's still within a five year window. Some kid and some agent will find a lawyer and a friendly court to get the kid back in college ball.
As you recall there were guys who played minor league baseball and then quit and came back to play college football. What does the sport matter? Still became a paid athlete.
Any kid who goes pro and still has time left in the 5 year window after getting cut or quitting the NFL will find a way back.
As you recall there were guys who played minor league baseball and then quit and came back to play college football. What does the sport matter? Still became a paid athlete.
Any kid who goes pro and still has time left in the 5 year window after getting cut or quitting the NFL will find a way back.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:39 am to wildtigercat93
That was a bit unnecessary. 
I wasn’t arguing with you or calling you, specifically, naive. I was just using your post to point out that the NCAA and/or SEC and the rest of the conferences backing down, admitting their mistake, and grandfathering in the ‘22 class won’t stop eligibility suits in the future.
Even if they had done it on time, it wouldn’t have either. You may not have thought that, but some do. But I do agree with Project that those future hypothetical players will have less of a leg to stand on. But I don’t think that will stop them from trying.
I wasn’t arguing with you or calling you, specifically, naive. I was just using your post to point out that the NCAA and/or SEC and the rest of the conferences backing down, admitting their mistake, and grandfathering in the ‘22 class won’t stop eligibility suits in the future. Even if they had done it on time, it wouldn’t have either. You may not have thought that, but some do. But I do agree with Project that those future hypothetical players will have less of a leg to stand on. But I don’t think that will stop them from trying.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:41 am to DrD
You're overthinking things. It specifically states for the 2022 class ONLY.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:45 am to DrD
Why can't you play pro college ball if you don't make it in pro NFL ball
College is a pro league
College is a pro league
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:51 am to thelawnwranglers
I don't think lawsuits will ever go completely away. I can easily see people still fighting for year 6 if they missed a year to injury. I understand that the new 5 for 5 does away with redshirts of any kind including medical in theory. Question is, does a court view it that way or do they say you have always provided an extra year due to injury or tonislitis and now you can't change as it is taking away their earning power blah blah blah
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:53 am to thelawnwranglers
Exactly. A lot of the same people complaining now have been screaming that "Amatuerism is Dead" to support the group think that the players should be able to transfer whenever they want, and be paid.
It's like the defund the police crap, you will have consequences for blurring all the lines that have long been established to stop this very type of thing. I say let it burn, and let us learn a lesson.
It's like the defund the police crap, you will have consequences for blurring all the lines that have long been established to stop this very type of thing. I say let it burn, and let us learn a lesson.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 9:54 am
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:00 am to LSU_Legz
quote:
truthfully, I dont even see a problem with them testing the waters and coming back if the valuations dont work out. Similar to baseball players and "leverage" scenarios.
The big part now is the players will know what's at stake going forward. A year 4 player can get his NFL grade and roll the dice, or stay for year 5 and make easy money.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:15 am to DrD
Only way this isn't a one-time deal is if there is all of a sudden a 6 for 6 year rule the NCAA implements. There is a big difference between forgoing your eligibility and entering the draft and running out of eligibility and having no choice. The argument for a player with eligibility remaining going into the draft and coming back is much different and weaker.
Now who knows what a local judge will do but there is a distinct difference and that is the point why its a one time thing not a regular thing.
Now who knows what a local judge will do but there is a distinct difference and that is the point why its a one time thing not a regular thing.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:21 am to DrD
I agree.
So many are saying this is a one-time thing.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
There is no telling what a court may decide if a case is brought before them.
With schools paying players now, it is an employment situation. I could easily see a court saying that any rule that prevents an athlete from working in college sports for any reason would be ruled against.
I am not saying I agree and want it to go that way, but let's face it the status quo has been upset and I'm not sure where it will end.
So many are saying this is a one-time thing.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
There is no telling what a court may decide if a case is brought before them.
With schools paying players now, it is an employment situation. I could easily see a court saying that any rule that prevents an athlete from working in college sports for any reason would be ruled against.
I am not saying I agree and want it to go that way, but let's face it the status quo has been upset and I'm not sure where it will end.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News