Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/13/26 at 12:01 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:
Is there a side in this that has the burden of proof?
Yes, Chambliss.
quote:
I don't pretend to be a lawyer
Well I am and, as an attorney, that hearing was hilarious
Posted on 2/13/26 at 12:02 pm to lsufball19
quote:
I am
That's exactly why I asked you and always look for your insight on stuff like this. Thanks for the info.
It just seemed strange for someone to ask for the NCAA's proof when it seems as if Chambliss needs to prove why he deserves another year. Not the other way around.
This post was edited on 2/13/26 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 2/13/26 at 12:08 pm to TigerLunatik
It was pretty clear throughout that hearing the NCAA was getting home cooked. The hearing was a formality. The judge took a 45 minute recess to “prepare” a ruling that took him an hour and a half to read. Most judges would have taken that under advisement and issued a written ruling days later. It’s very rare, especially with complex issues that take a day to litigate that I get a ruling the same day of the hearing
This post was edited on 2/13/26 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 2/13/26 at 12:21 pm to lsufball19
“It's not Ferris St's fault they didn't know he'd leave for a D1 program. I agree. But Chambliss knew or should have known this would be an issue for him when he decided to transfer.“
When he transferred, he had absolutely no idea that he would have had the kind of year he ended up having. And regardless, even if he had contemplated this issue, the NCAA’s position would have still kept him from playing the extra year. This is an unusual circumstance, exactly why it should be adjudicated to set a useful precedent. The injunction just means that Trinidad wouldn’t have to suffer as the NCAA figures it out.
When he transferred, he had absolutely no idea that he would have had the kind of year he ended up having. And regardless, even if he had contemplated this issue, the NCAA’s position would have still kept him from playing the extra year. This is an unusual circumstance, exactly why it should be adjudicated to set a useful precedent. The injunction just means that Trinidad wouldn’t have to suffer as the NCAA figures it out.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 12:24 pm to Marcusaureliussayshi
quote:
When he transferred, he had absolutely no idea that he would have had the kind of year he ended up having.
How good he is at football is irrelevant
quote:
And regardless, even if he had contemplated this issue, the NCAA’s position would have still kept him from playing the extra year.
Yeah, because he failed to do his due diligence. Ignorance of the law (rules) typically isn’t a defense, at least anywhere but Pittsboro, MS
quote:
This is an unusual circumstance
Can’t disagree there. Tonsillitis qualified as a medical hardship. Pretty wild I know
quote:
The injunction just means that Trinidad wouldn’t have to suffer as the NCAA figures it out.
There’s nothing to figure out except the NCAA now knows their guidelines mean nothing in state court and are unenforceable
This post was edited on 2/13/26 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 2/13/26 at 12:38 pm to lsufball19
quote:I do understand that. I also understand that the defendant didn't bring any evidence to the hearing.
You realize testimony is evidence right?
So the NCAA sent two attorneys to Mississippi with absolutely zero evidence other than cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses and it is a shock the NCAA lost?
Not to me, even if it was an impartial judge.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 12:46 pm to lsufball19
quote:
An appeal with go to an appellate court in Mississippi
Make sure it’s a State judge
Posted on 2/13/26 at 12:48 pm to Murph4HOF
quote:
So the NCAA sent two attorneys to Mississippi with absolutely zero evidence other than cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses and it is a shock the NCAA lost?
Why don’t you tell me who you think the NCAA should have called to testify but didn’t. And what tangible evidence not already in the record should have been submitted?
If you can’t do that, I don’t think you’re in a great position to give an informed opinion on what they should have done differently
quote:
I do understand that
I don’t think you do. The NCAA’s attorney didn’t do a bad job litigating their side yesterday. They were never winning that hearing in state court.
This post was edited on 2/13/26 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:01 pm to DeltaDoc
Thought I read somewhere the judge was an Ole Miss grad? If so.....that's just hilarious.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:07 pm to TigerB8
quote:
Thought I read somewhere the judge was an Ole Miss grad? If so.....that's just hilarious.
Ole Miss law school grad, Delta St undergrad. The state only has two law schools, Ole Miss and Mississippi College. Gonna be hard to find many judges in that State who don't have ties to Ole Miss.
What is funny is Chambliss's lead counsel also being the founder and general counsel for the Grove Collective, yet he said something along the lines of "we don't have any idea what NIL money you'll make next year." Oh really?
This post was edited on 2/13/26 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:08 pm to DeltaDoc
Does anyone even care,anymore?
This is like arguing about the dinner service as the Titanic sinks.
I'm looking forward to when Tom Brady suits up again for Michigan.
This is like arguing about the dinner service as the Titanic sinks.
I'm looking forward to when Tom Brady suits up again for Michigan.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:16 pm to lsufball19
quote:The person who decided Chambliss wouldn't receive a med redshirt earlier this year.
Why don’t you tell me who you think the NCAA should have called to testify but didn’t. And what tangible evidence not already in the record should have been submitted?
If you can’t do that, I don’t think you’re in a great position to give an informed opinion on what they should have done differently
The person who was in charge of D2 medical redshirts in 2022.
Any medical professional to dispute the Plaintiff's claims.
Examples of COVID, Mono, and Tonsillitis being rejected by the NCAA previously for a medical redshirt.
quote:They walked in with no evidence or witnesses.
I don’t think you do. The NCAA’s attorney didn’t do a bad job litigating their side yesterday.
It was over before it even began.
And the NCAA's attorneys were being considered for contempt of court. I'm not a lawyer, but I would say that's generally a sign you did a shitty job.
This post was edited on 2/13/26 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:17 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
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?
You mean there isn’t already a process in place by the NCAA that grants a 6th year to play 4 due to medical procedures? Com’on dude this statement by you is utterly moronic on so many levels and the fact the lawyers and judge blasted Mack truck sized holes in the NCAA’s arguement proved it yesterday.
Do us all a favor read the judge’s ruling before making a fool of yourself!
This post was edited on 2/13/26 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:19 pm to LARancher1991
quote:
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.
Or that the NCAA actually violated so many of their own rules it made it an easy slam dunk case.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:22 pm to lsufball19
quote:
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.
Please tells us you listen to an idiot like Mascano and not the actual testimony in the case. Dear Lord where you got is steaming pile of bull shite is beyond me!
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:23 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:
You know that’s not true.
Actually it is 1,000% true. Please go watch the entire proceedings before proving to everyone how stupid you are!
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:26 pm to DeltaDoc
So Chambliss is eligible next year?
Dear Lord is LSU fricked
Dear Lord is LSU fricked
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:28 pm to houstonearler
quote:
I do not understand how it was not rejected and case closed when Chambliss admitted he was healthy enough to practice with no restrictions in 2022.
Maybe because IT NEVER HAPPENED! Stop listing to hacks and use facts!
quote:
Public reporting on the case does not show that Trinidad Chambliss ever flat-out admitted he was healthy enough to practice in 2022. Instead, there are two competing narratives in the record:
• Chambliss and his legal team argued that respiratory issues, lingering tonsillitis, sleep apnea, COVID complications, mono, and related problems left him effectively incapacitated in 2022 and justified a medical redshirt, emphasizing that he did not play or dress that season.[espn +4]
• The NCAA pointed to medical notes showing he was “doing very well” by December 2022 and argued that he chose to forgo surgery so he could participate in the 2022 season, using that to suggest he was healthy enough to play or practice, but that contention came from the NCAA, not an admission by Chambliss himself.[sports.yahoo +3]
In court transcripts and coverage, he describes 2022 as “a roller coaster” of constant symptoms rather than conceding that he was fully healthy to practice, and the judge ultimately sided with his position that he was not a healthy young man during that period.[si +2]
Posted on 2/13/26 at 1:29 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Their cross-examination of Chambliss. In any other courtroom, that would have completely sunk his request for an injunction.
- When he testified that he was a full participant in all practices in 2022
- when he testified he was able to manage his symptoms with claritin and other OTC meds
Please produce the transcripts where he stated this!
We will wait…..like a really longtime because it didn’t happen!
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News