Started By
Message
Precedent - Chambliss & NCAA
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:14 am
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:14 am
First off, on a personal level, I’m happy for Chambliss. He and his family seem like great people and he’ll make life changing money this year.
As a precedent though, if you look at the NCAA rationale, he doesn’t meet the traditional criteria for another year.
In any other court in America outside of Mississippi, the petition would be denied on the merits.
As to precedent, let’s say a kid completed eligibility (maybe redshirt then four years). If said player files a petition for another year, then another year, then another in a friendly court and gets a court ruling, what can be done to stop it?
Essentially, maybe far fetched, Ole Miss just opened the door for direct competition with the NFL. As long as a kid is enrolled, and as long as they can get a local court to rule favorably on eligibility, they could play college ball for 15 years.
Yesterday was nearly as big for college athletes as unmitigated payment and transfer.
As a precedent though, if you look at the NCAA rationale, he doesn’t meet the traditional criteria for another year.
In any other court in America outside of Mississippi, the petition would be denied on the merits.
As to precedent, let’s say a kid completed eligibility (maybe redshirt then four years). If said player files a petition for another year, then another year, then another in a friendly court and gets a court ruling, what can be done to stop it?
Essentially, maybe far fetched, Ole Miss just opened the door for direct competition with the NFL. As long as a kid is enrolled, and as long as they can get a local court to rule favorably on eligibility, they could play college ball for 15 years.
Yesterday was nearly as big for college athletes as unmitigated payment and transfer.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:18 am to DeltaDoc
Correct, the goofballs at Ole Miss fail to grasp this and it’s also why the judge spent over an hour trying to justify it.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:20 am to Rip Torner
Exactly, and at Oklahoma, Owen Heinecke was denied an extra year because he played three lacross games as Ohio State
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:22 am to DeltaDoc
quote:
Essentially, maybe far fetched, Ole Miss just opened the door for direct competition with the NFL.
We don’t care.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:24 am to DeltaDoc
He filed to have 1 year granted and backdate a medical redshirt.. not to have permission to play 15 years.
No one is going to be able to play college football for 15 years because Trinidad was granted an injunction on a disputed medical redshirt.
No one is going to be able to play college football for 15 years because Trinidad was granted an injunction on a disputed medical redshirt.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:26 am to olemissfan26
quote:
olemissfan26
He filed to have 1 year granted and backdate a medical redshirt.. not to have permission to play 15 years.
No one is going to be able to play college football for 15 years because Trinidad was granted an injunction on a disputed medical redshirt.
Ask the player at Montana that just got his 9th year granted
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:27 am to Ourichie
quote:
Ask the player at Montana that just got his 9th year granted
He was granted his 9th year because of the precedent sent in the Trinidad injunction yesterday?
Or was the system broken well before the NCAA inconsistency enforced who gets extra years?
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:29 am to olemissfan26
Clearly the point went over your head
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:32 am to Ourichie
Apparently OU didn't know it was as easy as filing in a state court and getting a friendly judge.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:34 am to Sooner a Reb
quote:Lol what dumb arse dirt burglars.
Apparently OU didn't know it was as easy as filing in a state court and getting a friendly judge.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:35 am to olemissfan26
Seems you failed to grasp the point and concept (not surprised). To lay it out more simply for you the precedent has now been set that an NCAA ruling carries very little weight as far as eligibility is concerned. If you get before a court with a friendly judge, like the Ole Miss graduate judge in this case, it's feasible that a player can be granted more years of eligibility well past their 4th or 5th year.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:39 am to LARancher1991
the SEC is hell bent on pushing the NCAA as far as they can
Tenn
Bama
Ole Miss
It's time for the SEC to set it's own rules and if you don't like it go find another conference and another pay out from another league
Tenn
Bama
Ole Miss
It's time for the SEC to set it's own rules and if you don't like it go find another conference and another pay out from another league
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:39 am to DeltaDoc
Maybe if actual students sue their school for athletic academic double standards or students form club football teams. If actual alum started caring about the real students game it’d upset the system. I don’t know if anything can stop it at this point but I imagine it’ll take something unorthodox
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:42 am to olemissfan26
quote:
He was granted his 9th year because of the precedent sent in the Trinidad injunction yesterday?
Or was the system broken well before the NCAA inconsistency enforced who gets extra years?
If getting a medical waiver is as easy as having a letter written 4 years later from your own coach that you didn't play because you were sick, then yeah there has certainly been a precedent set that the bar for a medical waiver is ridiculously low at this point. Catastrophic injuries that end your season are no longer the general threshold. Yesterday we had a kid who testified he fully participated in all practices and was able to manage his symptoms with OTC meds, yet that was enough to get a medical hardship waiver. And there's really nothing the NCAA can even do to impose any regulations when it's impossible to enforce them in front of local judges.
So yes, yesterdays ruling opened the door for a lot. A kid who doesn't play because he's buried on the depth chart can simply apply for medical waivers and claim he had an illness with a letter from his coach. That seems to have been the standard set by the ruling, that the NCAA has a duty to make sure kids can play as much as they can, not have eligibility guidelines that are enforceable.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:45 am to lsufball19
Let's pretend for a minute that the Ole Miss alum judge didn't already have his mind made up:
The NCAA admitted they didn’t follow their own procedures for evaluating his Medical redshirt claim. This case wasn't about how strong Chambliss's case was but more about how weak the NCAA's case was.
The NCAA admitted they didn’t follow their own procedures for evaluating his Medical redshirt claim. This case wasn't about how strong Chambliss's case was but more about how weak the NCAA's case was.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:53 am to Murph4HOF
You know that’s not true.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:53 am to DeltaDoc
The NCAA should ban OM from NCAA sanctioned postseason play as long as they have a player playing that is ineligible according to NCAA rules.
Sure OM can pay him per judge/hearing…separate issue.
But, as a member institution of the NCAA, the NCAA should grow some balls and tell anyone that is playing players that the NCAA has said is ineligible that they are disallowed from participating in NCAA sanctioned events.
Sure OM can pay him per judge/hearing…separate issue.
But, as a member institution of the NCAA, the NCAA should grow some balls and tell anyone that is playing players that the NCAA has said is ineligible that they are disallowed from participating in NCAA sanctioned events.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:59 am to DeltaDoc
quote:In your opinion, what was the NCAA's best piece of evidence or their best witness?
You know that’s not true.
Imma hang up and listen, Pawl...
Posted on 2/13/26 at 11:00 am to KwoodTiger
quote:Low IQ football fan doesn't even know the NCAA doesn't control the CFP.
The NCAA should ban OM from NCAA sanctioned postseason play as long as they have a player playing that is ineligible according to NCAA rules.
Popular
Back to top

17

.png)








