Started By
Message
re: For all the barners who cried “Alabama is just going to vacate the win anyway” yesterday
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:32 pm to HailToTheChiz
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:32 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:
Delusion is thinking that a judge is all powerful and can dictate the NCAA how to handle its own organization
Where have you been for the last decade? The NCAA has been hammered by the judiciary, losing case after case. Numerous judges have told the organization exactly how they can handle individual student athletes from member institutions. I haven’t exactly been on board with a lot of the rulings, but you know Pavia just finished a Heisman finalist season following a TRO and then the NCAA being told by a judge that the rule they had used for ages could no longer be enforced. I get that Aubies are stinging on their rear ends from the second consecutive loss to Bama at Neville, but you are smoking some serious crack if you believe that courts haven’t been and won’t continue to dictate to the NCAA.
0
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:34 pm to labamafan
quote:
They can’t do this either. Look as long as they allow professional European players to play you can’t create unfair rules that prohibit American players under the same circumstances to not play.
They absolutely can and have. When you leave school and sign a professional NBA/G League/2 Way whatever contract you forfeit your eligibility. It's spelled out pretty plainly and has been that way forever.
You're right they won't face any retaliation or forfeitures but I do think there's a good chance he'll be ruled ineligible though it wouldn't surprise me if he weren't because the system is completely broken and you have tPOS like Nate Oats willing to exploit it.
This post was edited on 2/8/26 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:34 pm to au4you
quote:
The TRO doesn’t have offer any protections when it’s not in effect.
The entire logic of the TRO in these cases is that the NCAA can't punish the player or program if the case ultimately fails. The only logic.
That's why the programs/players are getting them. The only reason.
The NCAA has never tried to attack the legal premise of the TRO itself.
Their "win" in the Bediako case would simply be that their bylaw regarding NBA draft et al has stood up and make it much more difficult for another player to get a TRO for a similar case.
However, the NCAA has made so many contradictory determinations of eligibility the next similar case will likely only need one small differing detail from Bediako's. But that's the bed they've made.
I know you guys are praying for Alabama to get some kind of punishment or Indiana to have their football title stripped when their cases finally play out.
But there's not going to be any retroactive punishments for playing players during the periods that TROs were protecting them. Just precedents going forward.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:38 pm to Foy
quote:
Don't really understand the point of putting the biggest crosshair in college athletics on yourself for Bediako.
Said the same thing, at least with the Brandon Miller situation that team had a legit chance to win it all which also made it much sweeter when they crashed out to a G5 team.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:43 pm to wm72
quote:I was under the impression that the NCAA is also challenging the TRO under notice/procedural requirements which were not followed. This would give Judge Pruet an easy out because no circuit judge wants to get mandamus’d. Can anyone link the filings?
The NCAA has never tried to attack the legal premise of the TRO itself.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:43 pm to wm72
So what is going to happen. Here - I'll let you know. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a coach. But I know history.
The NCAA is a de facto Monopoly. That's their problem. Yes - a Monopoly made up of This and That and The Other Conference. But they banded together ... like NABISCO back in the day ... and created a Monopoly.
And there in lies the problem. Once you reach that level of control, the court rules change. Because the idea of "if you don't like it, don't play" change when you are the only game in town.
Long story short ? We're going to a model, short term, where all this unified playoff stuff is going away. Because you can't enforce a set of unified rules against the will of every individual in the collective.
End of Story.
The NCAA is a de facto Monopoly. That's their problem. Yes - a Monopoly made up of This and That and The Other Conference. But they banded together ... like NABISCO back in the day ... and created a Monopoly.
And there in lies the problem. Once you reach that level of control, the court rules change. Because the idea of "if you don't like it, don't play" change when you are the only game in town.
Long story short ? We're going to a model, short term, where all this unified playoff stuff is going away. Because you can't enforce a set of unified rules against the will of every individual in the collective.
End of Story.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:45 pm to AHM21
To me it is crazy that there's an issue with a former G Leaguer playing at Bama but not at other places. Lots of schools have G Leaguers on the team...but it's a problem because Bama has one? Lots of fake, selective outrage.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:49 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:
everyone will do this
Doesn't AU have a former pro-player on its roster? Filip Jovic? Why the outrage?
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:55 pm to dukeg7213
Bediako never should have declared in the first place and was never drafted. Too many of these players are getting bad information. He’s a good college player but that is about it
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:57 pm to PastorJ
Because Bama involved it is getting people attention. Baylor won a national title a few years ago and outrage basically non-existent.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 3:58 pm to PastorJ
quote:AU is playing within the guidelines set out like everyone else. Bama is doing something unprecedented in the middle of a season for a competitive advantage. It’d be one thing if this was going on in the offseason where everyone could adjust. But in the middle of a season to help out a weak front court is kinda bullshite. Which is why Bama is getting so much hate from every corner on this. The Baylor Nanji case is bullshite just like Oats said originally. He’s just taking it one large step further
Doesn't AU have a former pro-player on its roster? Filip Jovic? Why the outrage?
Posted on 2/8/26 at 4:00 pm to PastorJ
quote:
Doesn't AU have a former pro-player on its roster? Filip Jovic?
No. He was not at AU previously, didn't enter the draft, didn't sign an NBA contract, and didn't participate in games with NBA pros.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 4:09 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:
didn't participate in games with NBA pros
That wasn’t really the question.
I’ll concede that the situation is “different.” But it’s a difficult leg to stand on for the NCAA and fans saying playing in a foreign pro league is allowed, but not the G league. I didn’t like when the Baylor player was able to come back midseason, and I’m not thrilled at the precedent with Bediako either. Bama played Illinois earlier in the season, and they had like 5 Eastern European former pros on their roster that were all like 23+. It’s all gross.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 4:27 pm to au4you
quote:
I was under the impression that the NCAA is also challenging the TRO under notice/procedural requirements which were not followed. This would give Judge Pruet an easy out because no circuit judge wants to get mandamus’d. Can anyone link the filings?
You may be right about the NCAA trying to have the TRO itself invalidated as one course of action.
If they were to that, I suppose that could provide an avenue to retroactively punish Alabama instead of just have the TRO dissolved. I would assume that also punishing Alabama would in some way need to point to their awareness or complicity in the procedural issues with the TRO as otherwise they would also be "victims" of the issue.
For the NCAA that would certainly be an earth shifting move for them to go after Alabama specifically instead of just using the case to set precedent since there's literally hundreds of these type TROs allowing players to play and many are a lot more strained arguments than Bediako's.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 4:36 pm to wm72
quote:UA is not a party. Any exposure for playing a possible ineligible player is on UA.
I would assume that also punishing Alabama would in some way need to point to their awareness or complicity in the procedural issues with the TRO as otherwise they would also be "victims" of the issue.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 4:49 pm to au4you
quote:
UA is not a party. Any exposure for playing a possible ineligible player is on UA.
Anyway, by far the most likely outcome is either:
1) TRO is simply not extended and Alabama would be forced to appeal or simply stop playing Bediako
2) TRO is extended for the case to proceed due to sufficient inconsistencies in the NCAA's previous interpretation and application of their bylaws regarding professional players
Posted on 2/8/26 at 5:00 pm to wm72
quote:Again, UA is not a party. Any appeal would be filed by Bediako. UA has no legal obligation to play or not play Bediako.
1) TRO is simply not extended and Alabama would be forced to appeal or simply stop playing Bediako
Posted on 2/8/26 at 5:04 pm to wm72
quote:
The entire logic of the TRO in these cases is that the NCAA can't punish the player or program if the case ultimately fails. The only logic. That's why the programs/players are getting them. The only reason. The NCAA has never tried to attack the legal premise of the TRO itself. Their "win" in the Bediako case would simply be that their bylaw regarding NBA draft et al has stood up and make it much more difficult for another player to get a TRO for a similar case. However, the NCAA has made so many contradictory determinations of eligibility the next similar case will likely only need one small differing detail from Bediako's. But that's the bed they've made. I know you guys are praying for Alabama to get some kind of punishment or Indiana to have their football title stripped when their cases finally play out. But there's not going to be any retroactive punishments for playing players during the periods that TROs were protecting them. Just precedents going forward
This man knows ball. Alabama will not be punished for playing bediako under the TRO. If he gets ruled ineligible and then we play him, then sure. But that’s not what’s happening. As long as TRO is in effect Chuck can legally play.
Posted on 2/8/26 at 5:08 pm to au4you
quote:
Again, UA is not a party. Any appeal would be filed by Bediako. UA has no legal obligation to play or not play Bediako.
I simply mean in all these cases it's Indiana, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Alabama, Baylor etc lawyers representing the players and also looking out for the exposure of the programs.
Page 3 of 3
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News