College Sports (Basketball)

#26      
Chase321
Someone explain to me how KU is doing this given the B12 conference passed a rule in August against it? I get that it’s Self and KU and rules don’t apply but is this just a blatant violation of the rule or is there something I’m missing?
 
#27      
RabidDawgClassic
Chase321 said:
Someone explain to me how KU is doing this given the B12 conference passed a rule in August against it? I get that it’s Self and KU and rules don’t apply but is this just a blatant violation of the rule or is there something I’m missing?
Click to expand...

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.
 
#29      
NarrowJ
Aberdeen confirmed as currently eligible moves them above Duke to the #1 spot.

Kansas getting TKR eligible moves them into the top 5.

Freaking gross, dude.


1792439007855.png
 
#30      
BalloonsTheElephant
Ill... INI 27 said:
Why do players get 6th year boggles me. Is it multiple injury seasons. Court prejudice toward local schools? 1 case for sure was.
Does one states order carry over to all 50, ie can Illinois rule TKR or similarly legislated cannot play against Illinois schools, or in Illinois?

Seems very messy but, cant say I hate seeing NCAA being abused but hate it for the majority of players.

Will 5 for 5 eliminate these challenges and court (overeach?) rulings.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#31      
Ill... INI 27
So NCAA Hoops definitely is just G league NBA minor leagues if upheld. I actually feel NCAA might win this one...but...
 
#32      
the juiceman cometh
BalloonsTheElephant said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Back