Daley and Wyatt Eligible? Yes! (for now)

[go iu bb]

12 hours ago, DChoosier said:

The NCAA, that easily gave up when UNC, Kansas, Duke etc were caught cheating in basketball, with much of it on tape, but for some reason that same NCAA is hellbent on stopping guys that graduated high school 5 years ago from playing even though they just passed a 5/5 rule.

I mean WTF ???

The NCAA is, and always has been, very anti-athlete. The whole system is set up to exploit them. The athletes want this eligibility that the NCAA said they couldn't have so the idea of backing down and just allowing them to get it is antithetical. They must fight this because that is what the NCAA does.

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

[skhoosier2]

2 hours ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

Good news on that front. Hoping their stay request gets denied. 

[Napleshoosier]

On 9/29/2026 at 9:43 AM, go iu bb said:

The NCAA is, and always has been, very anti-athlete. The whole system is set up to exploit them. The athletes want this eligibility that the NCAA said they couldn't have so the idea of backing down and just allowing them to get it is antithetical. They must fight this because that is what the NCAA does.

NCAA is a bureaucracy.  Only more power, growth and money are important to them.

[skhoosier2]

NCAA won on appeal in Ohio this morning so those that are in that suit remain ineligible. I’m sure it will go to the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal by the players attorney. The guy I follow on X seemed to find the judges opinions interesting in a few areas but he says the findings of this judge say the 22 players knew they got 4 years so that argument was struck down and did not find the manual was breached by not specifying in writing the 22 class was excluded. Will be interesting to see how this affects the other cases that are making this argument that have appeals by the NCAA notably Daley/Wyatt/Alexis. 

[jermhoosierfan]

1 hour ago, skhoosier2 said:

NCAA won on appeal in Ohio this morning so those that are in that suit remain ineligible. I’m sure it will go to the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal by the players attorney. The guy I follow on X seemed to find the judges opinions interesting in a few areas but he says the findings of this judge say the 22 players knew they got 4 years so that argument was struck down and did not find the manual was breached by not specifying in writing the 22 class was excluded. Will be interesting to see how this affects the other cases that are making this argument that have appeals by the NCAA notably Daley/Wyatt/Alexis. 

Fraternities,Sororities & Student Societies

 

The judge must be a Michigan alum

[Brass Cannon]

Can a lawyer explain that these dates mean?  Could either of these dates be a date that they lose their eligibility?

[go iu bb]

30 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Can a lawyer explain that these dates mean?  Could either of these dates be a date that they lose their eligibility?

I'm not a lawyer but I believe the one on Oct 5th is although it is unlikely.

[Pagoda]

I think we will know shortly after Oct 8th (like a few days) — that’s when the appeals court will have everything they need to decide on the injunction.

[realTomCrean]

4 minutes ago, Pagoda said:

I think we will know shortly after Oct 8th (like a few days) — that’s when the appeals court will have everything they need to decide on the injunction.

What does all of this mean for eligibility during the Nebraska game on 09 Oct?

[Pagoda]

18 minutes ago, realTomCrean said:

What does all of this mean for eligibility during the Nebraska game on 09 Oct?

They’re eligible unless the appeals court reverses (“stay”) the injunction before the game.  Not sure they decide that fast but they might.

Edit: I am assuming Niz is right and it's the Court of Appeals request for a plaintiffs response by Oct 8th and not the Indiana Supreme Court.  

This all gets confusing.

[str8baller]

3 hours ago, skhoosier2 said:

NCAA won on appeal in Ohio this morning so those that are in that suit remain ineligible. I’m sure it will go to the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal by the players attorney. The guy I follow on X seemed to find the judges opinions interesting in a few areas but he says the findings of this judge say the 22 players knew they got 4 years so that argument was struck down and did not find the manual was breached by not specifying in writing the 22 class was excluded. Will be interesting to see how this affects the other cases that are making this argument that have appeals by the NCAA notably Daley/Wyatt/Alexis. 

Technically it means nothing. Practically, when you have new issues like this some judges look at other states/jurisdictions and sometimes follow suit and a consensus starts to form naturally. If you guys remember the 1A/Politicians blocking people on Twitter thing, it kind of unfolded that way. 

 

It’s still early here, but it does seem that appellate courts in OH, TN, etc.. are following a trend of smacking down hometown judges intervening on behalf of players.  Indiana appellate courts aren’t obligated to follow at all, though. 

1 hour ago, Brass Cannon said:

Can a lawyer explain that these dates mean?  Could either of these dates be a date that they lose their eligibility?

Not an attorney (presently) but I used to play one on tv. I hate trying to guess off media reports because they confuse things and terminology and then it confuses me. And I’m not looking this all up. But my read from that tweet is:  

 

1) Oct 5th the trial judge has to decide on the emergency motion filed after the hearing to basically vacate/stay their own ruling. The appellate court is telling the trial court to stop dragging their feet. I don’t love this for the players side,  but the trial court definitely shouldn’t be trying to “run out the clock” here by not making a ruling. It’s a simple ruling too because trial courts very rarely overturn a ruling they just made. 
 

2) players have until Oct 8th to get their brief in. That’s a quick turn around but probably warranted given the timeliness of things.  The court can then do what it wants ranging from ruling that day to deliberating for months or more.  
 

Personally, for the players I don’t love the national trend appellate courts starting to reign in trial judges. It’s needed but bad timing for our guys. Couple that with the IN appellate court telling this trial judge to make a ruling and I’d say the NCAA definitely has their attention.  
 

The NCAAs emergency appeal to the sup ct was stupid and I said so at the time. But that doesn’t mean their appeal to the appellate court doesn’t have merit.  If this was any other issue than this dumb 5 for 5 thing, I’d bet on the NCAA here. As it is, it is always good to be the winner at the lower court. I think if I had to handicap it I would ever so slightly rather be in the players shoes, but I’d be pretty nervous if I were them. The trial court made a really broad ruling and seems to be playing favorites with the timing of things, and that’s the stuff that catches appellate courts attentions. And possibly did so here. 

[skhoosier2]

Kentucky just followed suit with same ruling in favor of NCAA in appellate court this afternoon. Gave similar reasons to Ohio and not buying the 2022 exclusion or manual breach. Means nothing to the case in Indiana. Just find it interesting that two appellate courts in the same day come in with the same finding in favor of NCAA.

Not loving these two rulings with Indiana coming up. I doubt the trial judge gives the NCAA a stay but the appellate court will most certainly rule quickly and imo with what’s transpired currently it gives me pause that Daley/Wyatt won’t be knocked out and have to hope the appeal to Supreme Court gets heard quickly. 

[Demo]

Few’s right here. At this point the NCAA just needs to let this go. You can’t have a scenario where you have 2 guys with identical arguments and 1’s playing and 1’s not and the only differentiating factor is a judge or a jurisdiction. You just can’t. They’re not gonna get what they want from Congress this year. It’s time.

[Stuhoo]

19 minutes ago, Demo said:

Few’s right here. At this point the NCAA just needs to let this go. You can’t have a scenario where you have 2 guys with identical arguments and 1’s playing and 1’s not and the only differentiating factor is a judge or a jurisdiction. You just can’t. They’re not gonna get what they want from Congress this year. It’s time.

I could understand the NCAA taking a firm stand on this with the potential for a universal ruling.

I just can’t imagine how the NCAA is okay with selective jurisdictional eligibility.

[AZ Hoosier]

26 minutes ago, Demo said:

Few’s right here. At this point the NCAA just needs to let this go. You can’t have a scenario where you have 2 guys with identical arguments and 1’s playing and 1’s not and the only differentiating factor is a judge or a jurisdiction. You just can’t. They’re not gonna get what they want from Congress this year. It’s time.

I would tend to agree. I mean, for the classes after the 2022 class, everybody gets 5 years to play 5. What's the deal with trying to squeeze the 2022 class out? It seems somewhat discriminatory to single these kids out.

[Brass Cannon]

2 minutes ago, AZ Hoosier said:

I would tend to agree. I mean, for the classes after the 2022 class, everybody gets 5 years to play 5. What's the deal with trying to squeeze the 2022 class out? It seems somewhat discriminatory to single these kids out.

Yeah never understood the push to do this would have been so much simpler to just let them play and let teams have a few extra roster spots if needed.  
 

Would have still been some suite but not nearly enough and people would be less on the players side.  Just another L for the NCAA

[skhoosier2]

1 hour ago, Brass Cannon said:

Yeah never understood the push to do this would have been so much simpler to just let them play and let teams have a few extra roster spots if needed.  
 

Would have still been some suite but not nearly enough and people would be less on the players side.  Just another L for the NCAA

It’s all baffling at this point. What a disaster it’s going to be to have some states judges allow it while others strike it down. Also leaves the NCAA vulnerable for lawsuits for lost wages imo if they don’t have a universal ruling or just give up and allow 22 kids to play. 

[IUHoosierJoe]

2 hours ago, Stuhoo said:

I could understand the NCAA taking a firm stand on this with the potential for a universal ruling.

I just can’t imagine how the NCAA is okay with selective jurisdictional eligibility.

The NCAA being okay with selective eligibility is why we’re in this mess. 

[Home Jersey]

NCAA cares about making money and doesn't give a crap about the integrity of the game. IMO