Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/4/26 at 9:26 pm to iPad
The court injunction next week is what really matters.
He will be playing for the Rebs next season.
He will be playing for the Rebs next season.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 9:26 pm to tigerskin
quote:
The main lawyer that usually represents these players tweeted today that Chambliss will be taking a huge risk by relying on that injunction from the Ole Miss judge.
He was talking ab Aguilar but I suppose the same logic applies to TC
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
Aguilar faces substantial personal risk as well. Even if the court grants his preliminary injunction request following Friday’s hearing, an appellate reversal later this year remains possible. In that scenario, he would forfeit both his rookie NFL season and his college eligibility. There is risk associated with accelerating these proceedings well before the start of the season.
This post was edited on 2/4/26 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 2/4/26 at 9:30 pm to Honkus
quote:
He was talking ab Aguilar but I suppose the same logic applies to TC
I followed that up, asking him if that is the same for Chambliss. He said yes
Posted on 2/4/26 at 9:32 pm to tigerskin
quote:
I followed that up, asking him if that is the same for Chambliss. He said yes
Isn’t Chambliss projected higher? So, more to lose. Bigger idiot.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 9:33 pm to tigerskin
quote:
followed that up, asking him if that is the same for Chambliss. He said yes
Sure, it's a risk that if you get an injunction early the lawsuit could happen to soon and you lose. But the average civil case takes 1-3 years to resolve. Complex cases are closer to 3-4 years. Neither the Chambliss or Aguilar case are going to be heard on their merits and decided between now and the end of next season.
Which also means that if either don't get the injunction they need to go pro as their case won't be heard in time either.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 9:35 pm to iPad
Lane wanted out for a reason or two.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 9:36 pm to iPad
So, the dispute now turns to the local county court. If the court rules in favor of Chambliss and grants him another year to play, could the NCAA declare any game that he plays in a forfeited loss?
He could still play and earn $, but the NCAA would not recognize him as eligible and hence 0 team wins.
That would return power to the neutered NCAA.
He could still play and earn $, but the NCAA would not recognize him as eligible and hence 0 team wins.
That would return power to the neutered NCAA.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 9:41 pm to lsufball19
quote:
What's interesting is Chambliss' hearing is 2 days after the hearing in the Pavia case in federal court. Would be wild if the federal court shot Pavia and his co-petitioners down and some yokel in Lafayette County MS issues an injunction 2 days later for Chambliss
The sad part is the attorney knows his case is shite and his only hope is for a biased Mississippi state judge to rule in their favor.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 9:48 pm to rpg37
quote:If you're out of college eligibility, you're automatically available to draft. You only have to "declare" for the draft if going back to college is an option.
When do you have to declare by to enter draft?
Posted on 2/4/26 at 10:01 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
The sad part is the attorney knows his case is shite and his only hope is for a biased Mississippi state judge to rule in their favor.
What an incredible risk this kid is taking.
Clearly getting bad advice.
IF he were to go to the draft, he’s probably a top 3 QB pick with a ton of guaranteed money.
If he continues to pursue the extra year, he risks (1) getting the TRO overturned either before the season or during the season, and (2) a much lower draft position both because he’ll be in a less productive offense AND because it will be a deeper QB class.
Dude is an idiot if he continues to pursue.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 10:06 pm to SEC Doctor
quote:
Have to think Chambliss goes to the NFL
I’ve read that this is the weakest QB draft class in recent memory.
Possibly only Mendoza in the 1st round
Posted on 2/4/26 at 10:12 pm to OleVaught14
quote:
NCAA filed their initial response to the Mississippi Court on Monday this week and they did not challenge jurisdiction in that initial response. I believe that means they've waived their ability to challenge by not doing so in their initial response.
You can't waive subject matter jurisdiction.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 10:21 pm to Vecchio Cane
quote:
I’ve read that this is the weakest QB draft class in recent memory. Possibly only Mendoza in the 1st round
Yup and 2027 will be one of the most QB heavy drafts ever with Arch, Dante Moore, LaNorris Sellers, Brendan Sorsby, CJ Carr, and Maiava at USC
Posted on 2/4/26 at 10:24 pm to KwoodTiger
quote:
What an incredible risk this kid is taking.
Absolutely agree!
Hope the kid is being advised by someone who is only concerned what is best for him.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 10:45 pm to SEC Doctor
None. But he will get a TRO if he wants one. It's just a matter of judge shopping.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 10:45 pm to SEC Doctor
quote:
Local judge won’t have jurisdiction. I’ll bet a 6 month suspension he never plays another down for Ole Miss.
Tom Mars actually raised a good (and correct) point regarding the diversity of citizenship argument. The NCAA is an unincorporated association, meaning they are a "citizen" of every state in which they have members. Chambliss is suing the NCAA pursuant to MS state law. The controversy arose in the state of MS, and both litigants are "citizens" of the state of MS. So, yes, MS state court does have jurisdiction to hear this case.
And, as you've seen with the Bediako lawsuit filed in Tuscaloosa County, AL, and the Aguilar lawsuit filed in Knox County, Tennessee, other attorneys/litigants are taking notice and following suit.
had the NCAA been smart and incorporated in Indiana where they're headquartered, all of these lawsuits would fall under the jurisdiction of federal court. They basically set themselves up for this shite show, regardless of how ridiculous these rulings are and will ultimately be. the NCAA isn't wrong in their response when they state that these state filed lawsuits will make their bylaws ungovernable; however, it's their own fault they're in this situation. Athletes in these situations will continue to forum shop and file these things in their local counties with their own elected local judges and, more than likely, get favorable rulings
This post was edited on 2/4/26 at 10:48 pm
Posted on 2/4/26 at 10:49 pm to Lucado
quote:
You can't waive subject matter jurisdiction.
That's not entirely true in Mississippi State Court.
But yes, I should have specified that they have waived personal jurisdiction by not raising it (they have not yet challenged subject matter jurisdiction either - though very likely could later if they decide to).
Posted on 2/4/26 at 11:17 pm to The Pirate King
No because they would have to prove the NCAA violated its own rules. They didn’t.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 11:21 pm to OleVaught14
quote:
quote:
You can't waive subject matter jurisdiction.
That's not entirely true in Mississippi State Court.
It is entirely true in Mississippi state court and any other court. They would have no reason to challenge personal jurisdiction.
Page 3 of 4
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News