Started By
Message
Sankey and the "5 for 5" rule
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:19 pm
I see it repeated that Sankey was unaware of this new eligibility framework, but that's obviously not the case:
Clearing up the record here:
If he was not familiar with the rule, then why did he issue a memo to all SEC schools regarding the framework in question back on August 12th? LINK
The exact quote during the deposition was, "I have not seen it in the newly published 2026-27 NCAA rule book until today" after being asked this question:
"Commissioner Sankey, have you actually read the specific, finalized text of the '5 for 5' framework as it is currently printed in the official 2026-27 NCAA manual"
This is quite a stretch to twist that into "Sankey didn't know about the 5 and 5 rule".
The new eligibility framework was approved by the D1 cabinet on June 23. The framework was not codified into the official rules database until late July. And the actual official manual with the rules wasn't printed and distributed to the conferences and schools until just a couple of weeks ago.
Being asked under oath, "have you read the specific, finalized text... in the manual" is 100% not at all asking him if he's familiar with the rule.
The LSU fans misconstruing this are part of the problem here. Yall have created something that doesn't exist.
Clearing up the record here:
If he was not familiar with the rule, then why did he issue a memo to all SEC schools regarding the framework in question back on August 12th? LINK
The exact quote during the deposition was, "I have not seen it in the newly published 2026-27 NCAA rule book until today" after being asked this question:
"Commissioner Sankey, have you actually read the specific, finalized text of the '5 for 5' framework as it is currently printed in the official 2026-27 NCAA manual"
This is quite a stretch to twist that into "Sankey didn't know about the 5 and 5 rule".
The new eligibility framework was approved by the D1 cabinet on June 23. The framework was not codified into the official rules database until late July. And the actual official manual with the rules wasn't printed and distributed to the conferences and schools until just a couple of weeks ago.
Being asked under oath, "have you read the specific, finalized text... in the manual" is 100% not at all asking him if he's familiar with the rule.
The LSU fans misconstruing this are part of the problem here. Yall have created something that doesn't exist.
9
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:20 pm to AUTiger789
He said “No.”
That is all that matters.
That is all that matters.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:21 pm to AUTiger789
Adding context to ruin a narrative is strictly prohibited.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:21 pm to AUTiger789
Dumbass, this dude showed up to a case ABOUT 5 for 5 and said UNDER OATH he had not read the rule.
There is no grey area here.
There is no grey area here.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:22 pm to AUTiger789
And what assumes you to believe that he read it? You can’t blame LSU for assuming while also not providing evidence to the contrary. Being familiar with a rule does not mean you read and understood it.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:22 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
He said “No.”
He said, "No" in regards to whether he had read the "specific, finalized text" in the newly printed physical manual.
That's what attorneys and Compliance Departments are for. He knew the rule had passed. Why would he take the time to physically read a 1000+ page legal document to check for the "specific" wording and text??
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:22 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
The LSU fans misconstruing this are part of the problem here. Yall have created something that doesn't exist.
That seems to be happening quite a bit on both sides.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:23 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
AUTiger789
being cute and evasive is typically how attorneys advise witnesses to testify. Really gives you a ton of credibility with the Court
So he was either dumb and unprepared for not knowing the rule or he was dumb and unprepared for being a smartass while on the stand.
His biggest gaffe, however, was not being able to define what a professional athlete was.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:23 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
"Commissioner Sankey, have you actually read the specific, finalized text of the '5 for 5' framework as it is currently printed in the official 2026-27 NCAA manual"
Sounds like something he should do as the commissioner of the SEC
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:23 pm to Tigerdew
quote:
said UNDER OATH he had not read the rule.
No he didn't. Provide the quote. He said he hasn't read the specific finalized text in a gigantic legal document that was printed just a few days ago.
He in no way said he hadn't read the rule.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:24 pm to AUTiger789
Then why was he unable to answer what a professional was?
Sorry, no sale.
Sorry, no sale.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:26 pm to AUTiger789
People act like the CEO of Wal Mart has actually read the employee handbook. He pays people to do that while he has bigger fish to fry.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:27 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
He in no way said he hadn't read the rule.
That's exactly what he said.
But weep on, Nancy
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:27 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
No he didn't. Provide the quote. He said he hasn't read the specific finalized text in a gigantic legal document that was printed just a few days ago.
He in no way said he hadn't read the rule.
So, just to be clear, you’re saying he was asked if he had read the rule in its most recently written form... and his answer was no?
Got it.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:27 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
No he didn't. Provide the quote. He said he hasn't read the specific finalized text in a gigantic legal document that was printed just a few days ago.
Well when you are litigating off that rule maybe you should read the rule.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:27 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Sounds like something he should do as the commissioner of the SEC
Uhh no. A commissioner is the CEO of the SEC. He has a compliance department to read the minute details of the "specific text". If the commissioner isn't delegating that stuff, he's not a good commissioner. It's not his job to pour over 1000 page legal documents word for word.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:28 pm to SaltilloReb
quote:
People act like the CEO of Wal Mart has actually read the employee handbook. He pays people to do that while he has bigger fish to fry.
If the Walmart CEO is heading to testify in a court case I'm betting he/she/them has the fricking handbook on their lap a few days ahead of time.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:28 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Then why was he unable to answer what a professional was?
Because that's not a definition for him to decide on his own. The NCAA is the one in charge of that.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:29 pm to SaltilloReb
quote:
People act like the CEO of Wal Mart has actually read the employee handbook. He pays people to do that while he has bigger fish to fry.
Exactly
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:30 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
Uhh no. A commissioner is the CEO of the SEC. He has a compliance department to read the minute details of the "specific text". If the commissioner isn't delegating that stuff, he's not a good commissioner. It's not he job to pour over 1000 page legal documents word for word.
When he is litigating about a school and whether it is following the rules and appearing in court and the face of the conference then he should take the time to read the applicable rules.
This isn’t a big ask for a man making $4.5 million.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News