Started By
Message
Question for the legal experts re: local judges ruling on eligibility
Posted on 2/5/26 at 10:42 am
Posted on 2/5/26 at 10:42 am
If local judges can issue injunctions, etc. regarding the eligibility of a player, such as has been suggested in Mississippi, what would prevent a school in another state from obtaining an injunction to prevent the player from playing a game in that state?
For example, if Chambliss was ruled eligible by a MS judge, couldn't Florida file for an injunction in a Florida state court before it hosts Ole Miss to keep Chambliss from playing?
For example, if Chambliss was ruled eligible by a MS judge, couldn't Florida file for an injunction in a Florida state court before it hosts Ole Miss to keep Chambliss from playing?
7
Posted on 2/5/26 at 10:52 am to SEC Doctor
What would the practicalities of enforcement even look like?
Is a Florida State Trooper going to escort Chambliss off the field?
I show my ignorance, but how is the NCAA bound by the ruling of some local judge?
Is a Florida State Trooper going to escort Chambliss off the field?
I show my ignorance, but how is the NCAA bound by the ruling of some local judge?
Posted on 2/5/26 at 10:59 am to SEC Doctor
Hince why I hate rulings on anything that can be legal in 1 state but illegal in another state.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 10:59 am to SEC Doctor
Enjoy your six months
Posted on 2/5/26 at 10:59 am to Wildcat1996
These fricking attorneys are going to be the death of everything.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 11:24 am to Wildcat1996
quote:
I show my ignorance, but how is the NCAA bound by the ruling of some local judge?
Because state courts have jurisdiction over the NCAA.
TL;DR:
The NCAA is an unincorporated association of approximately 960 members, including virtually all public and private universities and 4-year colleges conducting major athletic programs in the United States (NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988)). The NCAA has members in every state and because it's an unincorporated association, the NCAA is considered to be a citizen of every state.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 11:29 am to Sl0thstronautEsq
The NCAA has an argument that this should be in federal court given their members are spread throughout the country.
I wish they fricking would so we could stop this nonsense.
I wish they fricking would so we could stop this nonsense.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 11:36 am to ForeverGator
quote:
The NCAA has an argument that this should be in federal court
They've been denied in the past when trying remove cases to federal courts (e.g., in the Tyon Grant-Foster case).
Posted on 2/5/26 at 12:21 pm to Sl0thstronautEsq
quote:
Because state courts have jurisdiction over the NCAA.
TL;DR:
The NCAA is an unincorporated association of approximately 960 members, including virtually all public and private universities and 4-year colleges conducting major athletic programs in the United States (NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988)). The NCAA has members in every state and because it's an unincorporated association, the NCAA is considered to be a citizen of every state.
What keeps State from filing an injunction to keep Chambliss from playing?
The judges being all Ole Miss grads?
This post was edited on 2/5/26 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 2/5/26 at 12:26 pm to SEC Doctor
quote:
what would prevent a school in another state from obtaining an injunction to prevent the player from playing a game in that state?
Lack of personal jurisdiction when it comes to the player would most likely prevent the court from issuing it.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 12:46 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
What keeps State from filing an injunction to keep Chambliss from playing?
The judges being all Ole Miss grads?
I mean, it's unclear whether State would be able to prove the necessary elements required for the granting of a TRO, but it'd be fun to watch it play out.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 1:24 pm to SEC Doctor
Florida would have no legal “standing” to bring such a suit. Case closed.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 2:00 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
Florida would have no legal “standing” to bring such a suit. Case closed.
Why would Florida not have standing to prevent an ineligible player from playing in a game in Florida?
Posted on 2/5/26 at 3:18 pm to SEC Doctor
We used to have this problem in Texas with high school eligibility until the legislature passed a law making Travis County (Austin) mandatory venue for any suit against the UIL.
Probably need to add a provision to the SCORE Act (the one that is supposed to implement the House settlement) making venue for any suit against the NCAA based upon eligibility mandatory in the US District Court of the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis).
Probably need to add a provision to the SCORE Act (the one that is supposed to implement the House settlement) making venue for any suit against the NCAA based upon eligibility mandatory in the US District Court of the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis).
Posted on 2/5/26 at 3:22 pm to SEC Doctor
What’s their standing to sue?
Posted on 2/5/26 at 3:31 pm to SEC Doctor
Because there’s no legally protected right to fair competition in a football game.
Posted on 2/5/26 at 5:31 pm to Sl0thstronautEsq
quote:
The NCAA is an unincorporated association of approximately 960 members, including virtually all public and private universities and 4-year colleges conducting major athletic programs in the United States (NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988)). The NCAA has members in every state and because it's an unincorporated association, the NCAA is considered to be a citizen of every state.
That's AI legal research for you. I just pulled up the court case you cited, and nowhere in it does the phrase "citizen of every state" appear.
How is an organization a citizen?
Page 1 of 1
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News