Daley and Wyatt Eligible? Yes! (for now)

[Demo]

38 minutes ago, str8baller said:

Wow. That’s pretty big. All of those kids will likely be eligible for the 2022 season. I see the court set a very expedited briefing schedule that includes the issue of the governors EO. The Governor may have forced their hand. The court could unwind this in a way that hurts the players, but generally if you get a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court like this it is a very good sign for your case. 
 

FindLegal Help

 

This makes me a little more bullish on the Indiana case.   
 

Also, if the Ohio Supreme Court were to somehow rule that the Governors EO is valid and makes the kids eligible we will probably see a cascading effect of other governors across the country doing it. 

At this point NCAA obviously doesn’t care about appearances at all but, man, if ultimately some of these kids are playing and some aren’t and the only distinction is venue how can they be good with that? And the eligibility thing from 1 week to the next, c’mon. Also curious about this: say Florida wins  the Natty with Denzel Aberdeen as their starting 2. Would the NCAA try to vacate the championship arguing that they used an ineligible player? Isn’t that the logical extension of the position they’ve taken? If IU went back to back with Wyatt and Daley why would the NCAA had them the trophy? It’s just a clusterf*ck and they need to pull the plug on this because it could actually get worse.

[Pagoda]

5 minutes ago, Demo said:

At this point NCAA obviously doesn’t care about appearances at all but, man, if ultimately some of these kids are playing and some aren’t and the only distinction is venue how can they be good with that? And the eligibility thing from 1 week to the next, c’mon. Also curious about this: say Florida wins  the Natty with Denzel Aberdeen as their starting 2. Would the NCAA try to vacate the championship arguing that they used an ineligible player? Isn’t that the logical extension of the position they’ve taken? If IU went back to back with Wyatt and Daley why would the NCAA had them the trophy? It’s just a clusterf*ck and they need to pull the plug on this because it could actually get worse.

I think injunctions prohibit the NCAA from punishing schools for playing those players during the injunction.

Last summer the NCAA made some threat about finishing cases after the season was over, and if they won and the players were deemed illegible they would have some basis to retroactively punish the schools.  Lou Moore's name was mentioned in this.  It went nowhere.

It is no doubt an embarrassing cluster of inconsistency.  Why they didn't include the '22 kids in 5 for 5 I don't know.  I really hate when organizations justify an action by claiming their hands are tied, when it reality they aren't and it's an excuse to do the wrong thing.

[AZ Hoosier]

8 minutes ago, Demo said:

At this point NCAA obviously doesn’t care about appearances at all but, man, if ultimately some of these kids are playing and some aren’t and the only distinction is venue how can they be good with that? And the eligibility thing from 1 week to the next, c’mon. Also curious about this: say Florida wins  the Natty with Denzel Aberdeen as their starting 2. Would the NCAA try to vacate the championship arguing that they used an ineligible player? Isn’t that the logical extension of the position they’ve taken? If IU went back to back with Wyatt and Daley why would the NCAA had them the trophy? It’s just a clusterf*ck and they need to pull the plug on this because it could actually get worse.

I totally agree, but (and I'm not a lawyer), if the courts decide that a player is eligible, doesn't make the NCAA declaring said player "ineligible" moot? I would expect that the courts would have the final say over the matter, so at that point, the NCAA would (finally) be neutered.

[Home Jersey]

11 minutes ago, AZ Hoosier said:

I totally agree, but (and I'm not a lawyer), if the courts decide that a player is eligible, doesn't make the NCAA declaring said player "ineligible" moot? I would expect that the courts would have the final say over the matter, so at that point, the NCAA would (finally) be neutered.

Unless of course the chaos the NCAA is intentionally sowing successfully gets Congress to give them their lousy bill. 

[skhoosier2]

25 minutes ago, Demo said:

At this point NCAA obviously doesn’t care about appearances at all but, man, if ultimately some of these kids are playing and some aren’t and the only distinction is venue how can they be good with that? And the eligibility thing from 1 week to the next, c’mon. Also curious about this: say Florida wins  the Natty with Denzel Aberdeen as their starting 2. Would the NCAA try to vacate the championship arguing that they used an ineligible player? Isn’t that the logical extension of the position they’ve taken? If IU went back to back with Wyatt and Daley why would the NCAA had them the trophy? It’s just a clusterf*ck and they need to pull the plug on this because it could actually get worse.

Therein lies the biggest problem in all of this. Some will be eligible some won't depending on the state that their lawsuit is in.  NCAA needs to let it go as they are the ones causing the most damage in all of this.  They are going to die on this hill to the bitter end.

[Home Jersey]

Just now, skhoosier2 said:

Therein lies the biggest problem in all of this. Some will be eligible some won't depending on the state that their lawsuit is in.  NCAA needs to let it go as they are the ones causing the most damage in all of this.  They are going to die on this hill to the bitter end.

That's why they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt and shouldn't have a role in the future of college sports. They've proven themselves to be bad faith actors. 

[jermhoosierfan]

1 hour ago, Home Jersey said:

Unless of course the chaos the NCAA is intentionally sowing successfully gets Congress to give them their lousy bill. 

There are theories out there that the NCAA is acting inept and doing this on purpose to get Federal legislation enacted.  They have fought everything for the last several years and keep losing .  You would think they would get the hint sooner or later.  They haven't done much in favor of the athlete until they were forced to.

[Demo]

1 hour ago, AZ Hoosier said:

I totally agree, but (and I'm not a lawyer), if the courts decide that a player is eligible, doesn't make the NCAA declaring said player "ineligible" moot? I would expect that the courts would have the final say over the matter, so at that point, the NCAA would (finally) be neutered.

Maybe, but in my conspiratorial brain this is what I see, using Aberdeen as the example, who I believe is eligible because of the Ohio case: Suppose UF wins the Natty beating, say, Duke. What stops the NCAA from running to a court in, I don’t know, let’s say North Carolina and arguing that the Ohio case was wrongly decided and Aberdeen should not have been eligible and the UF Natty should be vacated for using an ineligible player and the North Carolina judge pulling the pen from his Duke Law pen and pencil set and affirming the NCAA’s position? Unless there is specific law in place that stops that dead, and God I hope there is, tell me you can’t see that possibility? 

[Home Jersey]

1 minute ago, jermhoosierfan said:

There are theories out there that the NCAA is acting inept and doing this on purpose to get Federal legislation enacted.  They have fought everything for the last several years and keep losing .  You would think they would get the hint sooner or later.  They haven't done much in favor of the athlete until they were forced to.

I would go so far as to say they are not just theories... think it's their strategy at this point.

I see people (not just here, everywhere across the internet) say they don't know why the NCAA didn't just include class of 2022... Occam's razor and all that. They want this insanity because they want to be bailed out by Congress. 

[Demo]

5 minutes ago, jermhoosierfan said:

There are theories out there that the NCAA is acting inept and doing this on purpose to get Federal legislation enacted.  They have fought everything for the last several years and keep losing .  You would think they would get the hint sooner or later.  They haven't done much in favor of the athlete until they were forced to.

I don’t think it’s a theory at all, I think it’s pretty clearly what they’re doing.

[Demo]

3 minutes ago, Home Jersey said:

I would go so far as to say they are not just theories... think it's their strategy at this point.

I see people (not just here, everywhere across the internet) say they don't know why the NCAA didn't just include class of 2022... Occam's razor and all that. They want this insanity because they want to be bailed out by Congress. 

No doubt they wanted the Congressional intervention and it was a such a great issue for political grandstanding that I absolutely thought it would work. But now Congress is adjourned and the election’s coming up and they won’t seat a new one until January and they aren’t gonna call an emergency session for that. So they might as well pull the plug now.

[Home Jersey]

Just now, Demo said:

No doubt they wanted the Congressional intervention and it was a such a great issue for political grandstanding that I absolutely thought it would work. But now Congress is adjourned and the election’s coming up and they won’t seat a new one until January and they aren’t gonna call an emergency session for that. So they might as well pull the plug now.

My concern is this making its way through during the lame duck period after the elections and before the new Congress is sworn in. Since the political stakes are lower at that point, that's usually when some of the less popular stuff can get pushed through. There's a lot of big money groups behind this legislation. That concerns me. 

It's a dog water bill that doesn't give any form of representation to the players and shafts them financially with only 22% of revenue share. It doesn't have to be a players union, it could be set up like a trade association. Anything that doesn't include a provision for players to have a seat at the negotiation table is unsatisfactory IMO. 

[TTT]

Wonder what the next significant corrupt issue will be after this specific one passes?

[Demo]

13 minutes ago, Home Jersey said:

My concern is this making its way through during the lame duck period after the elections and before the new Congress is sworn in. Since the political stakes are lower at that point, that's usually when some of the less popular stuff can get pushed through. There's a lot of big money groups behind this legislation. That concerns me. 

It's a dog water bill that doesn't give any form of representation to the players and shafts them financially with only 22% of revenue share. It doesn't have to be a players union, it could be set up like a trade association. Anything that doesn't include a provision for players to have a seat at the negotiation table is unsatisfactory IMO. 

I think it’s terrible and if they do something they need to start from scratch. But I don’t think that happens in a lame duck session. It was such a great sloganeering campaign issue(WE FIXED COLLEGE SPORTS!!!!) that it’s fair to assume the opposition was pretty exclusively on the merits and a decent piece of the support was to use as a campaign issue and I don’t think that will extend past the election, particularly when you’re gonna have 25 or 30 lame ducks. Man, if they try to cobble something together in December that might make the current bill look sensible.

[RaceToTheTop]

2 hours ago, Demo said:

Maybe, but in my conspiratorial brain this is what I see, using Aberdeen as the example, who I believe is eligible because of the Ohio case: Suppose UF wins the Natty beating, say, Duke. What stops the NCAA from running to a court in, I don’t know, let’s say North Carolina and arguing that the Ohio case was wrongly decided and Aberdeen should not have been eligible and the UF Natty should be vacated for using an ineligible player and the North Carolina judge pulling the pen from his Duke Law pen and pencil set and affirming the NCAA’s position? Unless there is specific law in place that stops that dead, and God I hope there is, tell me you can’t see that possibility? 

At the end of the day, would it really matter to a school if the NCAA 'vacated' their title?  That used to be a boogeyman that scared schools but I don't think it holds the leverage it once did.  Money wise and in the eyes of fans in this day and age doesn't really change just because the NCAA doesn't recognize it.

[Hardwood83]

4 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

At the end of the day, would it really matter to a school if the NCAA 'vacated' their title?  That used to be a boogeyman that scared schools but I don't think it holds the leverage it once did.  Money wise and in the eyes of fans in this day and age doesn't really change just because the NCAA doesn't recognize it.

Watch out, Purdue is gonna start generating NC's from the ancient past! 

[AZ Hoosier]

1 hour ago, Hardwood83 said:

Watch out, Purdue is gonna start generating NC's from the ancient past! 

Better the ancient past than the future.

[Home Jersey]

3 hours ago, Demo said:

I think it’s terrible and if they do something they need to start from scratch. But I don’t think that happens in a lame duck session. It was such a great sloganeering campaign issue(WE FIXED COLLEGE SPORTS!!!!) that it’s fair to assume the opposition was pretty exclusively on the merits and a decent piece of the support was to use as a campaign issue and I don’t think that will extend past the election, particularly when you’re gonna have 25 or 30 lame ducks. Man, if they try to cobble something together in December that might make the current bill look sensible.

My original phrasing was a bit off when I referred to unpopular things getting pushed through during the lame duck. I think the public polling is actually very supportive of the bill, no doubt in large part thanks to the coordinated campaign by ESPN and other parties (the awful announcing article I shared on the previous page does a good job of illuminating some of the murkiness at play).

The bill would expire on Jan 3 if it's not signed before then, so I could pretty easily envision them picking this back up when recess is over and just rubber stamping this legislation on their way out the door as a favor to their donors with the political cover of saying the legislation polls popularly (because, of course, we all want to "fix" college sports but most people won't read much past the headlines of that's what this bill does. And some just flat won't care about players getting screwed).

I posted a while ago that my worry is that in the long run this legislation passing could seriously impact the amount of young athletes choosing to play football when you factor in the hard cap financially and continued CTE research. That was also mentioned by a Senator in a podcast interview with Barstool where he implored listeners to call their congresspeople and voice their concerns with the bill. I am admittedly a cynic, but you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Ironically, this malarkey all does much more to harm my interest in college athletics than the current status quo, which obviously could be improved.

[go iu bb]

1 hour ago, Home Jersey said:

My original phrasing was a bit off when I referred to unpopular things getting pushed through during the lame duck. I think the public polling is actually very supportive of the bill, no doubt in large part thanks to the coordinated campaign by ESPN and other parties (the awful announcing article I shared on the previous page does a good job of illuminating some of the murkiness at play).

The bill would expire on Jan 3 if it's not signed before then, so I could pretty easily envision them picking this back up when recess is over and just rubber stamping this legislation on their way out the door as a favor to their donors with the political cover of saying the legislation polls popularly (because, of course, we all want to "fix" college sports but most people won't read much past the headlines of that's what this bill does. And some just flat won't care about players getting screwed).

I posted a while ago that my worry is that in the long run this legislation passing could seriously impact the amount of young athletes choosing to play football when you factor in the hard cap financially and continued CTE research. That was also mentioned by a Senator in a podcast interview with Barstool where he implored listeners to call their congresspeople and voice their concerns with the bill. I am admittedly a cynic, but you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Ironically, this malarkey all does much more to harm my interest in college athletics than the current status quo, which obviously could be improved.

I wouldn't worry too much. When it passed the Senate there was serious doubt that it would make it through the House. Don't underestimate Congress' inability to agree and pass laws.

[jermhoosierfan]

1 hour ago, go iu bb said:

I wouldn't worry too much. When it passed the Senate there was serious doubt that it would make it through the House. Don't underestimate Congress' inability to agree and pass laws.

And some were worried about the athletes not having a say, while some of the members can't tell basketball from hockey.