College Sports (Basketball)
RabidDawgClassic
- Los Angeles, CA
I’m guessing teams like Kansas, LSU, etc are doing this in the hopes that the ultimate court ruling will be that these athletes can play. It would seem a final decision needs to be made on this rather quickly or more chaos would ensue.
My guess is, that if a final, binding ruling doesn’t come down before the start of the season, a team like Kansas will not play TKR for fear that any game he plays in could ultimately result in a forfeit. However, Will Wade at LSU will play everyone and anyone because risking an ultimate forfeit is not a gamble when you’d otherwise have only four scholarship players on your roster.
BillyBob1
- Champaign
Wonder what classes he is signed up for and if he is passing?
TKR is acknowledging he has used his eligibility, but he's saying that it's just an arbitrary number. It's stupid, but it's absolutely something that was going to be tested. It can still be overturned, but the NCAA has the same record to the antagonist in a John Grisham novel at this point.
If it goes through, it's basically saying that there are no limits and the 5 for 5 is dead, from what I understand. This would create new precedent that age/seasons played is no longer a factor that can limit your ability to play.
He was drafted but never signed a contract, which allows him arguably maintain his amateur status. As part of the injunction, he cannot sign with the Timberwolves.
So NCAA Hoops definitely is just G league NBA minor leagues if upheld. I actually feel NCAA might win this one...but...
And to this point (ultimate court ruling) has anyone here been keeping track or is very knowledgeable about this whole mess and can opine as to if and when an ultimate ruling will come down? Inquiring minds and all that.
That's not what he's saying.
He's saying he used a redshirt his freshman year under the old model that allowed 4 years of eligibility plus redshirts, and that under the new model he would not have sat out his freshman year and would have been able to play 5 seasons in 5 years. It's a dumb argument, sure, but it's not saying the eligibility numbers are "arbitrary." In fact he's arguing that the numbers are tantamount and that he's harmed by not getting the benefit of being able to play in 5-for-5 because he chose to take a redshirt under the old paradigm, and would never have made that choice under the new rules. And it certainly wouldn't mean "5 for 5" is dead, though it would raise a question about where we draw the line for athletes who competed before it was implemented. Would not have any effect on it going forward.
Once these unique cases start challenging the rules and winning, it opens up so many doors for anything to be called arbitrary. What would stop a 27 year old ex football player from deciding he'd like to come back and play college hoops?
This year is slop. I will be pulling for any squad that is doing this the right way. I hope teams like St John's, Kansas, anyone that had to go through this process of getting 24 year old men to join in October crashes. Could you imagine being on the roster, thinking you were going to play, practicing for the last 3 months and in swoops in some random old dude to take your spot? Cannot be great for the locker room.
I'd loe to avoid any of the grosser than gross teams to crash this year, either these above or team employing nothing but transfers (Tenn, Ville).
Even while the specific guidelines have come under review and at times courts have taken issue with them, courts have also consistently affirmed that the NCAA does have the authority to set eligibility rules. The question is always whether the specific rules or or their implementation go too far in a given circumstance (and typically it's the implementation, not the rule, that gets challenged).
Ultimately, the NCAA did this to itself. Changing the rule to 5-for-5 was a mistake and opened the door to all of this. I don't like 5-for-5 myself ,but the best case scenario was always that the initial few years would result in a lot of these kinds of situations, and it would yield a more simplified and less subject to challenge eligibility regime in the future. That's still the case.