- 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
THE BASICS in the Jack Pyburn Situation
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:09 pm
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:09 pm
In June 2026, the NCAA changed its eligibility system from essentially 4 seasons within 5 years to a new system that can allow 5 seasons within 5 years. But the NCAA excluded certain athletes from participating in this fifth season who started in 2022 and had already used four seasons.
Those athletes sued in Wisne v. NCAA, decided by Judge Sweeney in Colorado, arguing: “You changed the rule to allow five seasons, but you're unfairly leaving our class out.”
Sweeney agreed enough to issue temporary relief.
Timeline is roughly:
NCAA (June 2026) -- Creates the new 5-season opportunity.
Wisne v. NCAA (July 2026) -- States the NCAA can't exclude the qualifying 2022 class from it.
Current Issue (August 2026) -- Wisne v. NCAA did not address the NCAA’s separate rule prohibiting athletes who have signed professional contracts from returning to collegiate competition. Thus, for NFL signees, including Pyburn, the professional-contract rule presents a separate and significant eligibility hurdle, though it is not the only issue they face.
Louisiana TRO (August 19, 2026) -- Because Wisne did not address the NCAA’s professional-contract rule, those players needed separate relief. The Louisiana TRO provides that additional protection, temporarily preventing the NCAA from enforcing the professional-contract restriction against qualifying plaintiffs who satisfy the court’s conditions.
Think of the Louisiana TRO and Wisne v. NCAA as the two legs holding this protected class of NFL athletes in limbo.
The NCAA has already appealed Wisne.
So the argument for Pyburn and others: “The NCAA told us our college careers were over, so we went pro. Then the NCAA created a fifth season, and a court in Colorado said we should have an opportunity to use that 5th year. The NCAA shouldn't now use the fact that we went pro, when we believed we had no eligibility left, to stop us from using that fifth season.”
The bottom line is that those included in the Louisiana TRO are considered a part of a protected class. They join hundreds of other athletes who began their careers in 2022 (not all of whom went professional) in a claim at a fifth season.
The issue is complex, and the timing of these developments is almost laughable, given that the NCAA implemented its new “5-for-5” eligibility rule at arguably the worst possible time.
Those athletes sued in Wisne v. NCAA, decided by Judge Sweeney in Colorado, arguing: “You changed the rule to allow five seasons, but you're unfairly leaving our class out.”
Sweeney agreed enough to issue temporary relief.
Timeline is roughly:
NCAA (June 2026) -- Creates the new 5-season opportunity.
Wisne v. NCAA (July 2026) -- States the NCAA can't exclude the qualifying 2022 class from it.
Current Issue (August 2026) -- Wisne v. NCAA did not address the NCAA’s separate rule prohibiting athletes who have signed professional contracts from returning to collegiate competition. Thus, for NFL signees, including Pyburn, the professional-contract rule presents a separate and significant eligibility hurdle, though it is not the only issue they face.
Louisiana TRO (August 19, 2026) -- Because Wisne did not address the NCAA’s professional-contract rule, those players needed separate relief. The Louisiana TRO provides that additional protection, temporarily preventing the NCAA from enforcing the professional-contract restriction against qualifying plaintiffs who satisfy the court’s conditions.
Think of the Louisiana TRO and Wisne v. NCAA as the two legs holding this protected class of NFL athletes in limbo.
The NCAA has already appealed Wisne.
So the argument for Pyburn and others: “The NCAA told us our college careers were over, so we went pro. Then the NCAA created a fifth season, and a court in Colorado said we should have an opportunity to use that 5th year. The NCAA shouldn't now use the fact that we went pro, when we believed we had no eligibility left, to stop us from using that fifth season.”
The bottom line is that those included in the Louisiana TRO are considered a part of a protected class. They join hundreds of other athletes who began their careers in 2022 (not all of whom went professional) in a claim at a fifth season.
The issue is complex, and the timing of these developments is almost laughable, given that the NCAA implemented its new “5-for-5” eligibility rule at arguably the worst possible time.
This post was edited on 8/19/26 at 10:11 pm
3
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:19 pm to Settlement Alliance
Here is bigger question….how and why did 3 former Ole Miss players join the suit in the East Baton Rouge District Court. None of them are from Baton Rouge unless they moved here. They have no connection to Baton Rouge unless they want to come to school here. Hummmmmm
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:38 pm to Lsustev
Well, your question is part of the other issue addressed in the Louisiana TRO. As explained in the OP, the NFL athletes have several hurdles to clear, one being the issue of professionalism, the other being the NCAA transfer portal rules.
Say the NCAA loses its appeal in Wisne; athletes in different sports across the country (none of whom went pro) get their 5th year. The question now becomes: can they transfer if their portal window is closed? The LA TRO addresses professionalism + the right to transfer outside of the window if granted the 5th year.
We have no indication that this lawsuit is affiliated with or brought on behalf of the University, and neither attorney who sought the TRO appears to have any known ties to the University.
Say the NCAA loses its appeal in Wisne; athletes in different sports across the country (none of whom went pro) get their 5th year. The question now becomes: can they transfer if their portal window is closed? The LA TRO addresses professionalism + the right to transfer outside of the window if granted the 5th year.
We have no indication that this lawsuit is affiliated with or brought on behalf of the University, and neither attorney who sought the TRO appears to have any known ties to the University.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:44 pm to Settlement Alliance
This shite is gay as hell
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:47 pm to Settlement Alliance
It wasn’t brought by LSU. It apparently was brought by the individual players. My question is one of jurisdiction. The 19thJDC does not have nationwide jurisdiction. There is no connection of these Ole Miss players to Baton Rouge….unless they want to play here.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:55 pm to Lsustev
It could be as simple as joining a class action suit. If the suit was started in Baton Rouge then I’m assuming other players around the country will want to join that to seek relief. I have no idea if that’s how this actually works but I guess we will find out. And I’m assuming they have attorneys that recommended this strategy.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:05 pm to Settlement Alliance
LSU is all in.
Lane sees openings and takes it to the crossing line.
Lane sees openings and takes it to the crossing line.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:14 pm to Lsustev
Yes, now I see, because Louisiana would be the place of the alleged harm. I want to get my hands on that lawsuit and see how they applied this.
My guess: If Wright, Harris, or another Ole Miss plaintiff has no residence, school, employment, intended college destination, or relevant injury in Louisiana, then there is a legitimate question about why that particular plaintiff's claim belongs in a Louisiana state court.
And your hypothesis could be the missing piece: they may intend to play in Louisiana.
There's another important possibility: joinder. The lawyers may have established jurisdiction and venue through particular Louisiana-connected plaintiffs and then joined similarly situated athletes seeking the same relief against the NCAA. Whether Louisiana procedural law permits all of those claims to remain together, and whether the court can grant relief to every plaintiff, would be a separate question from whether one plaintiff clearly belongs there.
My guess: If Wright, Harris, or another Ole Miss plaintiff has no residence, school, employment, intended college destination, or relevant injury in Louisiana, then there is a legitimate question about why that particular plaintiff's claim belongs in a Louisiana state court.
And your hypothesis could be the missing piece: they may intend to play in Louisiana.
There's another important possibility: joinder. The lawyers may have established jurisdiction and venue through particular Louisiana-connected plaintiffs and then joined similarly situated athletes seeking the same relief against the NCAA. Whether Louisiana procedural law permits all of those claims to remain together, and whether the court can grant relief to every plaintiff, would be a separate question from whether one plaintiff clearly belongs there.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News