0
- 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: Why did this group get a 5th yr?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:11 am to jp4lsu
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:11 am to jp4lsu
so the rule is pretty simple and yes they could have avoided all of this by passing the rule sooner and including 2022 class
essentially its age based to stop alot of the BS
you get 5 years to play 5 with exceptions only being for military service, pregnancy and 1 or 2 other legit reasons
but its 5 years to play 5 seasons, no redshirts, no medical redshirts but its also age based
clock starts the academic year after you turn 19 or when you enroll full time at a member institution. this was the compromise with the hocky community since many play junior hockey
so academic year starts sept 1 in the new rule
so here it is in simple terms to get the 5 for 5
-cant turn 19 before September 1st of your senior year(this is directly from the website). If you do a post grad year, you cant turn 19 before sept 1 of that year either. essentially if you turn 19 before sept 1, clock starts that fall. turn 19 after sept 1, the clock starts the following fall
- other way to start the clock is enroll in a member institution.
this is supposed to stop a lot the hold back stuff that is happening in basketball since you cant turn 24 before sept 1 of 5th season
but it will encourage fall birthdays to hold back and be 19 when they graduate HS now. I know a ton of people that are holding back in 8th grade now because of this that have fall bdays.
essentially its age based to stop alot of the BS
you get 5 years to play 5 with exceptions only being for military service, pregnancy and 1 or 2 other legit reasons
but its 5 years to play 5 seasons, no redshirts, no medical redshirts but its also age based
clock starts the academic year after you turn 19 or when you enroll full time at a member institution. this was the compromise with the hocky community since many play junior hockey
so academic year starts sept 1 in the new rule
so here it is in simple terms to get the 5 for 5
-cant turn 19 before September 1st of your senior year(this is directly from the website). If you do a post grad year, you cant turn 19 before sept 1 of that year either. essentially if you turn 19 before sept 1, clock starts that fall. turn 19 after sept 1, the clock starts the following fall
- other way to start the clock is enroll in a member institution.
this is supposed to stop a lot the hold back stuff that is happening in basketball since you cant turn 24 before sept 1 of 5th season
but it will encourage fall birthdays to hold back and be 19 when they graduate HS now. I know a ton of people that are holding back in 8th grade now because of this that have fall bdays.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:54 am to RB10
quote:
The lawsuit today is about the SEC denying certain players their 5th year of eligibility, not pro contracts. The SEC is trying to turn it in a pro vs. amateur dispute, but that’s going to have to be done in a separate lawsuit.
The players added the SEC to this lawsuit.
quote:
SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey was added by plaintiffs as a defendant in the lawsuit following the league's recent move to block the return of pros to SEC teams. He was expected to appear and potentially testify.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:55 am to jp4lsu
quote:
This won't apply in the future unless they come out early with eligibility left and try to make a NFL team without entering the draft. If they enter the draft, they are done.
And what if the players fight back against that like RK Luis is currently doing?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:57 am to LSBoosie
quote:
The players added the SEC to this lawsuit.
Correct. Because the SEC has said they will enforce the NCAA ruling that they’re ineligible when they’ve backed down in every other instance of this happening. Pavia. Chambliss. Hutson. The list is a mile long, but they’ve decided this is where they put their foot down.
They can’t do that.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 9:58 am
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:57 am to RidiculousHype
quote:
a new 5 for 5 rule and applies to every class except for 2022. A judge said nope, it applies to them too
They should have made the ruling early in 2026 and none of this would be occurring.
The NCAA are morons.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:13 am to Pikes Peak Tiger
quote:
As noted above, the 2022 class got royally screwed by the NCAA as they are the only class this decade not to be given a 5th year.
Class of 2021 did not receive an additional year of eligibility. They had 5 to play 4, just like 2022. IF 2022 had been included, 2021 would have been the only class to not receive an extra year of eligibility.
quote:
Again, as noted above, if the NCAA would have simply included the 22 class in the 5for5, we would not be having this discussion right now.
Or, some guys who were unable to make a practice squad in the last year would have sued to receive an additional year of eligibility. At this point, if the NCAA makes an eligibility rule you can assume someone somewhere is going to challenge it (Pavia, Chambliss, etc).
quote:
And there is really no good reason why that class was left out.
They had exhausted their eligibility. That's why they were left out. There may be a redshirt senior somewhere that is going to be able to finagle a 6th year out of the new rule, but I don't see how outright.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:14 am to RB10
quote:
Correct. Because the SEC has said they will enforce the NCAA ruling that they’re ineligible when they’ve backed down in every other instance of this happening.
No the SEC has said that schools can sign those players and play them if they are ruled eligible, but there are going to be consequences for the schools if they do. That’s why the SEC wasn’t added to the lawsuit until they came out with the punishment for the schools.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:16 am to LSBoosie
quote:
No the SEC has said that schools can sign those players and play them if they are ruled eligible, but there are going to be consequences for the schools if they do. That’s why the SEC wasn’t added to the lawsuit until they came out with the punishment for the schools.
Jesus Christ
There will be penalties because they will be playing ineligible players. Getting a TRO doesn’t make the players eligible, it just keeps any penalties from being levied while it is active.
Please, please try and keep up.
ETA: This is about the SEC and selective enforcement. Hutson at Texas was ruled ineligible by the NCAA. The SEC has said he can be rostered and played without consequence. Same for Chambliss. Same for the Missouri player, the USCe player.
All ineligible, all rostered and playing, without consequence. The SEC has decided now, with this select group of players, that they WILL follow NCAA rules and penalize them and anyone who plays them.
Again, they can’t do that.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 10:24 am
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:58 am to RB10
quote:
There will be penalties because they will be playing ineligible players. Getting a TRO doesn’t make the players eligible, it just keeps any penalties from being levied while it is active.
The new SEC rules and consequences are for players that have signed pro contracts. That’s why LSU would not be punished for signing the DE from Notre Dame.
quote:
ETA: This is about the SEC and selective enforcement. Hutson at Texas was ruled ineligible by the NCAA. The SEC has said he can be rostered and played without consequence. Same for Chambliss. Same for the Missouri player, the USCe player.
None of those players signed pro contracts.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 11:34 am to LSBoosie
quote:
Imo, it was never really that “unfair” for the class of 2022. They had the same rules that everyone before them had.
But they didn't. Class of 20 and 21 got covid years, some getting 6 and in some instances 7 years to play college football. 22 class got 4. 23 and on will get 5.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 11:36 am to RB10
quote:
Jesus Christ
There will be penalties because they will be playing ineligible players. Getting a TRO doesn’t make the players eligible, it just keeps any penalties from being levied while it is active.
Please, please try and keep up.
ETA: This is about the SEC and selective enforcement. Hutson at Texas was ruled ineligible by the NCAA. The SEC has said he can be rostered and played without consequence. Same for Chambliss. Same for the Missouri player, the USCe player.
All ineligible, all rostered and playing, without consequence. The SEC has decided now, with this select group of players, that they WILL follow NCAA rules and penalize them and anyone who plays them.
Again, they can’t do that.
pretty much this. Pavia is another high profile case.
also the NCAA is run by fricking morons. they could have avoided all of this easy AF. their lawyers suck major dick.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 11:54 am to Relham10
No redshirt., no greyshirt, no sore throat medical redshirt bullshite...5 years and you can play all 5
Posted on 9/3/26 at 12:13 pm to armytiger96
Thanks for the compliment that you think I was trying to make the NFL. My feelings aren't hurt at all. I just wanted to call you out for your lack of fairness...maybe you are working in the NCAA or SEC office since we are trying to determine the other's profession. I have not seen one school saying that the 2022 class would take up 1 roster spot. Also, I believe you haven't kept up with the roster requirements. If you are ON the roster...your 105 number is one of the few things you have correct, you ARE on scholarship. There are 0 walk-ons unless they changed the rule back.
And BTW, the number of football players filing suits is far less than 2400 but hey, just post hyperbole stuff and hope nobody notices. Then you finally admitted the number involved in football was less than 50. Oh, and thanks for your philosophy of life which apparently is "LIFE'S NOT FAIR". Hopefully if you ever file a tax return and get audited for no reason and get hauled in by the police because you look like a criminal they are searching for, you can take solace in being spoken to with "LIFE's NOT FAIR."
Your message was not worth the time you took to type it, It was inaccurate, irrelevant, and quite frankly trite and stupid. Post less, a-hole!
And BTW, the number of football players filing suits is far less than 2400 but hey, just post hyperbole stuff and hope nobody notices. Then you finally admitted the number involved in football was less than 50. Oh, and thanks for your philosophy of life which apparently is "LIFE'S NOT FAIR". Hopefully if you ever file a tax return and get audited for no reason and get hauled in by the police because you look like a criminal they are searching for, you can take solace in being spoken to with "LIFE's NOT FAIR."
Your message was not worth the time you took to type it, It was inaccurate, irrelevant, and quite frankly trite and stupid. Post less, a-hole!
Posted on 9/3/26 at 12:16 pm to armytiger96
Hey, the Mormon players at BYU can make a choice. The military academy guys make choices after college if they are drafted by the NFL high enough. But hey, play the age factor as if you come off as some mature person...you don,'t. You come off like an entitled, spoiled brat who doesn't give a damn about fairness or being honest in your posts. 
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:24 pm to Run DMC
quote:
But they didn't. Class of 20 and 21 got covid years
The class of 2021 did not get a Covid year.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 5:53 pm to NotaStarGazer
quote:
The military academy guys make choices after college if they are drafted by the NFL high enough.
The only choices they truly have is to attend the Academy in the first place and stay at the Academy after their sophomore year. If they choose to show up for class the first day of their Jr year Uncle Sam owns them and any choices after that are subject to the wording in the NDAA. I know one of my teammates wasn't given a choice. He had to serve but if I recall correctly they allowed him serve in the guard instead of active duty.
My mormon classmates/teammates also had a choice and they chose to leave the Academy to carry out their religious mission and then they would have to reapply to come back to the Academy once their mission was complete.
I find it ironic that you want to ban a handful of athletes from coming back to college athletics for carrying out their religious freedoms, buy hey, we are all entitled to our opinions.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 6:34 pm to NotaStarGazer
quote:
And BTW, the number of football players filing suits is far less than 2400 but hey, just post hyperbole stuff and hope nobody notices.
Not only do you have the emotional stability of a 12 year old girl, but I see you lack reading comprehension skills as well. Please show me where I said 2,400 athletes are suing the NCAA. I specifically said 45, which was taken from an article on Tiger Rag.com
Go back and read the post. I pointed out that if the NCAA had grandfathered in the Class of '22 as you and the vast majority of this board suggest should have been done. Then approximately 2,400 football players are now eligible to fill the one of the 14,000 FBS football slots. The problem is those 14,000 FBS slots have already been filled by current eligible players and the incoming class of recruits who just signed LOIs on the premise that these seniors had moved on.
So, I will ask you again. If you are a leader of an organization and you have to implement a new rule to curb the chaos are you going protect the current members of your organization or you going to allow others that are no longer eligible to be part of your organization to come back? It may be unfair to the Class of 22 but it would more unfair to the other four classes that currently make up your organization.
The NCAA chose to be unfair to the Class of 22 because now they only have to deal with the 44 athletes that cared enough to sue versus the chaos that could have ensued when 2,400 football players were retroactively given one year of eligibility back in the name of fairness.
Part of me thinks this is all Political Theatre orchestrated to push the Save College Sports Act across the finish line.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 6:38 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 7:29 pm to armytiger96
quote:
I find it ironic that you want to ban a handful of athletes from coming back to college athletics for carrying out their religious freedoms, buy hey, we are all entitled to our opinions.
Yeah, as opposed to a FEW handfuls of players of ONE SINGLE CLASS, 2022, that were screwed out of their 5th year of eligibility because the NCAA decided to change the rule AFTER they had to make their choice. And the BYU players do their process year after year after year across many classes. As far as their religious freedom goes, God bless them. But amazing how you seem to think they have more rights than the class of 2022 who were the only class excluded since 2020 to have potential 5 years of playing.Posted on 9/3/26 at 7:40 pm to armytiger96
My God!!!! Now, you just clip quotes and prove YOU can not read.
Hey Charles Dickens, if you had one honest bone in your body which you do NOT, you would have quoted THIS line from the post your responded to. " Then you finally admitted the number involved in football was less than 50.' See that line? You accidentally forgot to mention the number 50 huh? What a sleaze bag you are! As far as mentioning 2400 suing the NCAA, I NEVER said you predicted that, a-hole! Learn to read, DUMMY!
And once again, you posting hyperbole as if 2400 that would be eligible to file for that year MIGHT actually file is utter nonsense and show you don't know squat about football. There is NOTHING unfair about allowing the class of 2022 to have the same rights as the class of 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025, ad infinitem. Seriously man, you are making a fool of yourself. You misquote me and then make up some nonsense argument that has 0 reality to it. Oh, and for the record, being unfair to 44 football players and many more than that if you include others sports IS being unfair.
quote:
Please show me where I said 2,400 athletes are suing the NCAA. I specifically said 45, which was taken from an article on Tiger Rag.com
Hey Charles Dickens, if you had one honest bone in your body which you do NOT, you would have quoted THIS line from the post your responded to. " Then you finally admitted the number involved in football was less than 50.' See that line? You accidentally forgot to mention the number 50 huh? What a sleaze bag you are! As far as mentioning 2400 suing the NCAA, I NEVER said you predicted that, a-hole! Learn to read, DUMMY!
And once again, you posting hyperbole as if 2400 that would be eligible to file for that year MIGHT actually file is utter nonsense and show you don't know squat about football. There is NOTHING unfair about allowing the class of 2022 to have the same rights as the class of 2020, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025, ad infinitem. Seriously man, you are making a fool of yourself. You misquote me and then make up some nonsense argument that has 0 reality to it. Oh, and for the record, being unfair to 44 football players and many more than that if you include others sports IS being unfair.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 7:43 pm to Wayne Campbell
quote:
Class of 2021 did not receive an additional year of eligibility. They had 5 to play 4
Hope that isn't your Final Jeopardy answer because it is WRONG! It has been pointed out by many analysts and I remember it myself that the class of 2020 and the class of 2021 both got an extra year of playing due to the COVID situation. It wasn't just 2020
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News