1
- 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 7:47 pm to NotaStarGazer
Posted on 9/3/26 at 7:47 pm to NotaStarGazer
quote:
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.
Dude either you are trolling or you completely lack reading comprehension skills. For your sake I hope you're trolling.
The NCAA has said ALL Class of 22 athletes that have used up their eligibility under the old rules are not eligible under the new rules. There is no "after they had to make their choice!"
As far as the NCAA was concerned they never had a choice to make.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 7:59 pm to NotaStarGazer
quote:
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
That’s why Garrett Nussmeier is still playing at LSU this year and Trinidad Chambliss had to sue for a 6th year of eligibility?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:16 pm to armytiger96
Guy, you have tried that SCAM before. The RULE as it was concocted was BAD and ILL-TIMED. Perhaps, French is your language...obviously not English. As I have stated MANY TIMES, the proper rule would have EITHER been announced BEFORE drafts and given them the right at that time to take the 5 for 5 or not OR if they wanted to wait, they needed to let them do what they are trying now. They were NOT given the option they should have been given.
Trying to use an EXCUSE of an poorly written and timed policy change is making you look like a fool...it really is! You keep up the same irrelevant argument. The 5 for 5 rule is a GREAT rule if they had done it properly in its starting point. They did NOT!
Trying to use an EXCUSE of an poorly written and timed policy change is making you look like a fool...it really is! You keep up the same irrelevant argument. The 5 for 5 rule is a GREAT rule if they had done it properly in its starting point. They did NOT!
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:20 pm to Wayne Campbell
Trinidad Chambliss should NOT be playing. He came up with a status I have never heard of...the retroactive redshirt. At his previous school, he deserved a redshirt year because he didn't play more than 4 games. However, he did NOT request it. If he had done it right, he would have been just fine without his lawsuit.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 5:33 am to NotaStarGazer
quote:
Trinidad Chambliss should NOT be playing.
Agreed.
quote:
He came up with a status I have never heard of.
You’re going to have to provide some links to this imaginary status. He applied for a medical redshirt. Most medical redshirts are granted retroactively.
All this aside you completely ignored the fact that Garrett Nussmeier was class of 2021 and he had 5 to play 4.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 6:03 am to jp4lsu
How are all the most ignorant and unaware fans always the most confident when it comes to starting threads?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 6:13 am to RidiculousHype
As it should, what makes 2022 so different
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:00 am to jp4lsu
Sounds like you don’t know the new rule just like Sankey
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:27 am to PunchdrunkLPdaddy
quote:
Sounds like you don’t know the new rule just like Sankey
You are correct. But I've become well versed it in since.
I can understand wanting a hard cutoff, but if NCAA would've given this 2022 class the option for 5 for 5, that would've been a hard cutoff or at least hard enough.
NCAA with 5 for 5 is allowing those that initially enroll in 2026-2027 year to use either 5 for 5 or previous rules, whichever is best for them. That doesn't make sense.
The NCAA screwed up and made this mess themselves.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 9:37 am to Wayne Campbell
"Medical redshirts must be applied for during the same academic year in which the injury occurs, typically before the end of the season. The injury must be season-ending and the athlete must have participated in less than 30% of the games for the application to be considered valid"
Trinidad applied for his YEARS after the SUPPOSED injury/sickness which in and of itself has not been proven. As I said, "retroactive redshirts" are NOT legitimate.
Trinidad applied for his YEARS after the SUPPOSED injury/sickness which in and of itself has not been proven. As I said, "retroactive redshirts" are NOT legitimate.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:25 am to NotaStarGazer
quote:
As I said, "retroactive redshirts" are NOT legitimate.
Fine. None of this changes the fact that the freshman class of 2021 did not receive an additional year of eligibility due to Covid.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:31 am to Relham10
quote:
So it used to be you could get a 5th year if you redshirt. Now its just 5 full years of competition?
Yes.
You can thank that poison dwarf Diego Pavia for this mess.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News