- 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 lawyers involved say this is about 5/5 for everyone. Apply rules evenly so everyone
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:18 am
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:18 am
3
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:18 am to tigerskin
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:19 am to tigerskin
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:19 am to tigerskin
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:25 am to tigerskin
What about 6/6
Or is the SEC just going to pretend that Chambliss didnt happen?
Or is the SEC just going to pretend that Chambliss didnt happen?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:32 am to Pikes Peak Tiger
quote:
What about 6/6
Or is the SEC just going to pretend that Chambliss didnt happen?
that was a medical RS. not the same. i get it was complete and utter BS tho.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:37 am to tigerskin
Why doesn't the SEC want players to return from the NFL? Is it against having professionals? 
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:37 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
that was a medical RS. not the same. i get it was complete and utter BS tho.
That medical redshirt was to get his 6th year of eligibility. The current rule is you have 5 years to play 5 regardless of redshirt. How is his redshirt year even a factor if you only have 5 years to play 5 regardless.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:39 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
that was a medical RS. not the same. i get it was complete and utter BS tho.
But the SEC being completely fine with Diego Pavia and Chambliss getting BS multiple years while not being okay with players from a class who should have been given eligibility because of the new rule is what makes the entire thing laughable. If you're going to scream rules must be followed then keep that same energy across every rule. Don't just pick and choose which need to be followed. That is where the SEC failed.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:40 am to Pikes Peak Tiger
quote:
Or is the SEC just going to pretend that Chambliss didnt happen?
Well, Chambliss is a 5+ soooooooo....
If every player named in these lawsuits can't suit up then Chambliss should be kicked off immediately.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:41 am to BillyBobfan24_7
quote:
That medical redshirt was to get his 6th year of eligibility. The current rule is you have 5 years to play 5 regardless of redshirt. How is his redshirt year even a factor if you only have 5 years to play 5 regardless.
When the NCAA announced the 5 for 5 rule, they said it started with the class of 2023. Everyone else was subject to the old rules. That’s why it doesn’t apply to him.
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 8:42 am
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:42 am to Topcat
quote:
Why doesn't the SEC want players to return from the NFL? Is it against having professionals?
Their argument will be those players didn't want to be in the NFL draft. They were automatically put there when their 4 years were up. Which is actually true. You don't have to sign up. You are automatically placed as eligible to be drafted
Posted on 8/31/26 at 8:51 am to tigerskin
If the SEC doesn't want professional players, then players should not be paid. Let the NFL set up its own farm system.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:18 am to LSBoosie
quote:
When the NCAA announced the 5 for 5 rule, they said it started with the class of 2023. Everyone else was subject to the old rules. That’s why it doesn’t apply to him.
From what I read, it is not even that simple. They said players in the class of 23 can use either the previous rules (5 to play 4 with medical redshirt allowances) or the 5-5 rules, whichever each player and their university deem most beneficial. So for the class of 2024 HS seniors, the 5-for-5 is their only choice.
I realize that explanation will probably get a few glazed eyes from the people who think Chambliss getting a 6th year is the same as the 5-for-5 issue. The Chambliss case was a sham ruling, but it was a completely different sort of ruling.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:23 am to mdomingue
quote:
From what I read, it is not even that simple. They said players in the class of 23 can use either the previous rules (5 to play 4 with medical redshirt allowances) or the 5-5 rules, whichever each player and their university deem most beneficial. So for the class of 2024 HS seniors, the 5-for-5 is their only choice.
Yeah I’m not necessarily saying that it’s simple, just that the 5 for 5 rule doesn’t affect the Chambliss situation. Two completely separate rulings.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:25 am to LSBoosie
quote:
Yeah I’m not necessarily saying that it’s simple, just that the 5 for 5 rule doesn’t affect the Chambliss situation. Two completely separate rulings.
Yeah, simpler is always better here.
Conflation and hyperbole are the norm on TD.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:36 am to Pikes Peak Tiger
Chambliss was the biggest yet
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:38 am to mdomingue
I believe it wasn’t even that simple. I believe they said the class of 2022 completed their eligibility in the spring of this year, before 5 for 5 came out, so it doesn’t apply to them The class of 2026 is the first class that 5 for 5 applies to. All of the other classes already in school have the option to be covered by 5 for 5 or by the old rules (red shirts, medical redshirts, etc.), whichever is more beneficial to the player.
The Chambliss court decision was before 5 for 5 came out and probably instigated the 5 for 5 rule. The problem with Chambliss is not that he got an extra year, because those were the rules in effect at the time. The problem is he used a bogus medical condition to obtain the medical redshirt. The NCAA applied the rules in effect at the time, but the Ole Miss fan judge didn’t.
The Chambliss court decision was before 5 for 5 came out and probably instigated the 5 for 5 rule. The problem with Chambliss is not that he got an extra year, because those were the rules in effect at the time. The problem is he used a bogus medical condition to obtain the medical redshirt. The NCAA applied the rules in effect at the time, but the Ole Miss fan judge didn’t.
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 9:43 am
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:39 am to BillyBobfan24_7
quote:
That medical redshirt was to get his 6th year of eligibility. The current rule is you have 5 years to play 5 regardless of redshirt. How is his redshirt year even a factor if you only have 5 years to play 5 regardless.
Privacy•Advertising•Contact•Terms
wasn't that granted way before the 5 for 5 took effect?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 9:42 am to bbnitiger
quote:
or by the old rules (red shirts, medical redshirts, etc.), whichever is more beneficial to the player.
right. that is how i understood it also and why chambliss( who never went to a pro camp) is a different set of sub-rules.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News