Started By
Message
re: SEC Policy Allows Cole Hutson at Texas to be eligible?
Posted on 8/26/26 at 7:54 am to ForeverGator
Posted on 8/26/26 at 7:54 am to ForeverGator
Because LSU is trash
0
Posted on 8/26/26 at 8:29 am to ForeverGator
Might be an unpopular opinion in Austin but I don't agree with Cole being allowed to play.
I also laugh at anyone who thinks this is on the same level as what LSU is doing. Not even in the same ballpark.
I also laugh at anyone who thinks this is on the same level as what LSU is doing. Not even in the same ballpark.
This post was edited on 8/26/26 at 8:32 am
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:13 am to ForeverGator
quote:
I am all for giving LSU grief, but the SEC allowed this to happen with their current language. Maybe it gets updated, but a player can go through the draft process, go undrafted, attend rookie mini camps, but as long as they don't sign, they can return?
Weird. Just make it simple like it used to be. If they go through the draft process and don't withdraw, they're not eligible. Easy.
I posted this last night; the policy is illogical and would get shredded in court. Players didn't know the eligibility rule was about to change. The SEC decides to reward 5th year players if they essentially quit football after last season ended. It punishes other players if they tried to continue their football career and failed or got injured, unless they failed really badly and then they can return. In other words, the players who can't return are the ones who would've been more likely to return if the rule had changed 4 months earlier. It's arbitrary and capricious and raises the question of whether SEC office decisions are based on who gains and who loses.
This post was edited on 8/26/26 at 9:17 am
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:16 am to bamameister
This is right. You have to put your name into the draft. There is a process he went through.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:19 am to hookem33
quote:
I also laugh at anyone who thinks this is on the same level as what LSU is doing. Not even in the same ballpark.
It is the same. What he did goes against the rules the SEC just passed. Is there something that says breaking one rule is worse than breaking another I didn't see. He didn't withdraw his name from the draft. People keep saying he didn't "declare" because he was a senior but you have to put your name into consideration. That's declaring for the draft. That's how he got into a rookie mini camp.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:19 am to ForeverGator
IMHO-Players in the 2022 class-who had no other option but to declare for the NFL because they erroneously were told their eligibility was up SHOULD be allowed to play. They got screwed in light of the five to play five rule. The court got this part right.
Those who voluntarily left to go pro and were in camp and still had NCAA eligibility left should not.
Those who voluntarily left to go pro and were in camp and still had NCAA eligibility left should not.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:20 am to ForeverGator
There are different rules for Alabama and Texas. The REC has spoken.
This post was edited on 8/26/26 at 10:00 am
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:28 am to Desert Storm 1991
I don’t think Hutson will be allowed to play either. And does Texas risk it for a player that couldn’t make an NFL team? Will be interesting to watch
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:30 am to SidewalkTiger
Posters keep saying it's a one time thing. I believe what Cole Hutson is going through right now is going to become the norm unless addressed by the SEC. I noted this in a couple of threads yesterday. Players are going to be testing their NFL value after their 3rd year from high school graduation class and become eligible to play in the NFL. They'll go through combine and camps without contract and on an invite/trial basis. They'll purchase a simple injure insurance policy and see what they're worth to the league.
If no NFL interest, they return to school or portal.
If no NFL interest, they return to school or portal.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:31 am to Lsupimp
quote:
The court got this part right.
Whether the court decision was right or wrong it was consistently applied. The SEC decision is wrong no matter what because it is inconsistently applied. The players in question had no choice but to move on because their eligibility was done. The NCAA rule said they all had to leave and none of them knew that would change. That NCAA rule was consistently applied and then it changed without advance notice. Nobody had time to make advance plans based on the new rule. So the court said the players could've benefitted from that information, so they could all return. Some may say that's bad for the sport, but that court ruling was consistently applied across the group.
Now Sankey's crew tries to somehow differentiate and divide players based on arbitrary rules. Some can return and some can't based on the perverse opposite of their desire and/or attempts to continue playing football. That is completely inconsistent and illogical. The question becomes what drives SEC decisions about when to support NCAA rules, when to fashion their own selective rules, and when to do nothing.
This post was edited on 8/26/26 at 10:00 am
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:34 am to wdhalgren
You are exactly right.
I've been thinking how similar the SEC office is to a political party that CREATES a problem and then acts like a hero for botching it with a terrible "solution".
I've been thinking how similar the SEC office is to a political party that CREATES a problem and then acts like a hero for botching it with a terrible "solution".
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:37 am to Lsupimp
I presume he got paid some amount of money to participate with an NFL team in camp.
That should clearly make him ineligible to play under the spirit of the new SEC rule.
But, of course, it's a clusterfrick.
That should clearly make him ineligible to play under the spirit of the new SEC rule.
But, of course, it's a clusterfrick.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:42 am to Lsupimp
quote:
I've been thinking how similar the SEC office is to a political party that CREATES a problem and then acts like a hero for botching it with a terrible "solution".
I've been wondering for a while if the SEC under Sankey is operating based on broad principles or case by case personal preference. The inconsistencies are glaring.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:47 am to bamameister
quote:
The NFL recognized his draft status, and he was invited to camp. He recognized his draft status and went to camp.
That's plenty of declaring to shoot it down.
The NFL automatically recognizes the draft status of every player without remaining eligibility. The SEC conditions are straight forward, and Hutson's situation does not meet any of those conditions. That's it.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:49 am to wdhalgren
To me-it just seems like power brokers exerting their authority-ego driven behavior. Puffed up egoists, It certainly is not in the interest of any 2022 players who were screwed because they were uniquely excluded from 5 years to play five. And because they have hung it on Lane Kiffin-who is a lightning rod -they ensure the mob will cheer it on.
I bet if they said-you must return to the same school-there wouldn't have been a peep.
I bet if they said-you must return to the same school-there wouldn't have been a peep.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:52 am to Capn_Bevo
quote:
The NFL automatically recognizes the draft status of every player without remaining eligibility. The SEC conditions are straight forward, and Hutson's situation does not meet any of those conditions. That's it.
This is just flat out incorrect. He went to a NFL mini camp. To do that he would have had to "declare for draft" and "did not appropriately withdraw" from draft. If he would have properly withdrew he wouldn't have been allowed to go to an NFL rookie mini camp.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:53 am to ForeverGator
The new rule is titled The TEXAS EXEMPTION
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:55 am to ForeverGator
This is the TEXAS favoring BS the Arkansas fans tried to warn us about concerning Texas
Posted on 8/26/26 at 10:02 am to stitchop
quote:
This is the TEXAS favoring BS the Arkansas fans tried to warn us about concerning Texas
The Texas kid won't be eligible if the rule holds up in court. The Texas fans just can't read or think. Just because a kid wasn't drafted doesn't mean he "withdrew from the draft". If he did he wouldn't have been allowed to go to a rookie mini camp. It's very easy to follow but their bias blinds them.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 10:06 am to SEC Doctor
Did he bring a bag lunch to minicamp?
If not he accepted some form of payment to be there.
If not he accepted some form of payment to be there.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News