- 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
re: Is this really a 1 time deal?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:34 am to SG_Geaux
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:34 am to SG_Geaux
Former minor league baseball players tried snd failed to regain eligibility to play college baseball. Some could always try again- what started this is allowing europpean pro basketball players to play in the NCAA. The can of worms was opened.
0
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:36 am to SouthernInsanity
There is a big difference between a player who chooses to leave and go pro and a player that was forced to leave early and go pro. Does it mean someone who leaves early and doesn't make it won't file a lawsuit to try and come back? No. That's why they have courts but their argument will be completely different than the 2022 class argument which is a viable argument. And that is why as far as this class goes they should be allowed to play this year. Especially when you have players in their 6th, 7th or8th year currently playing. A 24-26 yr old has a huge advantage over a 21 yr old that was cut from NFL camp. That's why this is so stupid. Look at Indiana last year and see how many 24-26 year olds they had.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:43 am to DrD
Stop carrying water for ESPN, homey.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:44 am to DrD
This time,probably, there will be different sorts of challenges in the future. The schools and players will challenge league / NCAA authority going forward.
There's probably a private equity component in all of this and we are just watching the beginning. The SEC probably isn't pissed about the end run on this eligibility thing as much as we might think. Somebody is screwing with or jeopardizing the money of the whole.
There's probably a private equity component in all of this and we are just watching the beginning. The SEC probably isn't pissed about the end run on this eligibility thing as much as we might think. Somebody is screwing with or jeopardizing the money of the whole.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:44 am to Ralph_Wiggum
The difference is the kid “chose” to leave.
These kids were forced to leave because they were out of eligibility… until they weren’t —after they had already made the decision.
These kids were forced to leave because they were out of eligibility… until they weren’t —after they had already made the decision.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:46 am to LSUcajun77
quote:
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.
Yeah, we all keep saying that they should have announced it about 3 months earlier and that would have avoided the mess. However, IMO IF they had announced it in say November of this year, it would have solved the problem also. Too late for players in football or basketball to have taken advantage and would not have pointed to bias against their class. If I was the judge UNLESS they can come up with some great reason why they did it right after the drafts were over, that is going to be the killer argument against denying these players the right to reclaim one year of college eligibility.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:51 am to DrD
quote:
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.
well that is the entire premise
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:27 am to SammyTiger
ok Sammy, I'm with YOU! Let's remove the "IF" part of original rant. Pretty lame argument to NOT let these guys play. No wonder the judges are siding w the players. Doesn't matter what state is jurisdiction. Thursday arguments will be interesting. Wonder if court room will be full? ha!
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:43 am to DrD
quote:
Is this really a 1 time deal?
Basic math, and a little bit of common sense will give you the answer to this question.
2026 is the fifth year for exactly one class in the history of the world. That would be the class of 2022. They’re the one’s that had to make a decision without all of the info.
The class of 2021’s eligibility ran out in 2025 so they’re out of eligibility.
The class of 2026 and moving forward, know the rules.
That’s it.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 11:59 am
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:51 am to thelawnwranglers
quote:At what cutoff point do you say 25 year olds going against 18 year olds coming out of high school is too much?
Why can't you play pro college ball if you don't make it in pro NFL ball
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:55 am to DrD
quote:
Is this really a 1 time deal?
I’m afraid it’s not. But who knows.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:12 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
he 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
True, but their argument will be that other guys got to go to camp and return to college so it should be allowed for e everyone. And will be the new norm. Play a few years, try out for a pro team, return to college if it doesn’t work out.
It’s always a slippery slope and just keeps making things worse.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:19 pm to LSUcajun77
quote:
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.
That's the way it's always been. Timing of the rule change should not matter. There was no expectation on their part or promise from the NCAA that there would be an extra year. They
There has always been a rule that you enter the draft you forfeit your future eligibility. That hasn't changed and it is very obvious that the NCAA intended for this rule to remain in place. Otherwise they would have grandfathered them in as one time exemption.
The timing of the rule just gives an athlete and lawyer to challenge it in a very friendly court. Once precedent is set this will be an annual occurrence.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:21 pm to EvrybodysAllAmerican
quote:
True, but their argument will be that other guys got to go to camp and return to college so it should be allowed for e everyone.
Again that’s a different (and much worse) argument than these TRO players, and there’s a clear legal distinction as to why these players are treated differently than future players.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:24 pm to wildtigercat93
I get that but this will be next year’s reasoning. That’s the slippery slope.
100% chance players will try it again next year if its allowed this year.
100% chance players will try it again next year if its allowed this year.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:24 pm to armytiger96
quote:
That's the way it's always been. Timing of the rule change should not matter. There was no expectation on their part or promise from the NCAA that there would be an extra year. They
None of these players voluntarily declared for the draft. These are all players who are from the same 2022 recruiting class who ran out of eligibility under the old rules, went through the draft process and then the rule changed after the fact.
The legal argument from the TRO is that they were deprived of the choice to return to college because of the late ruling. None of these guys are players who chose to declare early
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:27 pm to EvrybodysAllAmerican
quote:
get that but this will be next year’s reasoning. That’s the slippery slope.
That argument could be made regardless of what the NCAA/leagues do this season in relation to these TROs. Thus it is not a slippery slope.
No future player will be able to argue they did not have the option to return because of a late ruling. Slope is not slippery. Doesn’t mean there aren’t other slopes to fall down on this metaphorical mountain.
Stop just saying slippery slope instead of using reading comprehension skills.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:36 pm to wildtigercat93
How about some comprehension yourself? Slippery slope means we change a little bit more each year and it never seems like a big deal. Just like we’ve been doing since about 2020. Obviously it’s a different argument next year, but you give them a leg to stand on if you allow it this year. Put a stop to it this year and it won’t be an issue next year because they won’t be able to point to these pro players as a reason to allow it again.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:44 pm to EvrybodysAllAmerican
quote:
How about some comprehension yourself? Slippery slope means we change a little bit more each year and it never seems like a big deal
Again, These TROs do not prevent the slope you are describing, whether they allow it or stop it. There will be future legal challenges on different arguments in the future. No one is stating this is the last legal argument players will have in future years.
What I am saying is that allowing these TROs this year stops the drama this year (bc at the end of the day the NCAA caused this specific loop hole being exploited) and it is no longer an issue in the future. Guys next year cannot use the same argument to get another year and thus the results of these cases will have no bearing on those legal arguments.
quote:
Obviously it’s a different argument next year, but you give them a leg to stand on if you allow it this year.
They are standing on that leg regardless of the cases this year.
quote:
Put a stop to it this year and it won’t be an issue next year because they won’t be able to point to these pro players as a reason to allow it again.
Again putting a stop to it this year does not prevent them from making the exact same new legal arguments you are envisioning here.
Yes there will continue to be legal challenges as long as there is this disaster of a conference/league set up and lack of collective bargaining. That is a separate and larger issue than the specific issue being ironed out in these TROs.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 12:46 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
None of these players voluntarily declared for the draft. These are all players who are from the same 2022 recruiting class who ran out of eligibility under the old rules, went through the draft process and then the rule changed after the fact. The legal argument from the TRO is that they were deprived of the choice to return to college because of the late ruling. None of these guys are players who chose to declare early
No shite and the NCAA still had no intention in including them otherwise there would be grandfather clauses and these guys wouldn't need the courts to escort them in.
And yes they did voluntarily sign up for the draft. No one forced them to enter their name.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 12:56 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News