UnsureTiger

quote:

---

WTH? How can you appeal something “secretly”?

---

This article is full of click bait terms and words that aren't exactly true or a good representation of exactly what happened.

quote:

---

Unsure,

I heard Tony crossed Sankey with the Chambliss situation. Did he ask him why a 5th year player who made $190 is ineligible, but a 6th year player making $5 million is eligible? How did that line of questioning play out?

---

Yes this was brought up by Tony Clayton. Sankey said that the Chambliss situation is different because he had a medical issue. Sankey said that he was not able to discuss the medical issue, but that is the reason that his situation is different.

The SEC is saying that it is against former professional players playing in the SEC.

No one has been able to define what a former professional player is.

The problem is that not only can the SEC not define this, but their own definition and standard changed at least 5 times during the hearing.

At the beginning the judge flat out asked the SEC attorney "what is amateurism" and the attorney said he couldn't answer at that time, but would answer later. He never ended up answering that question.

Sankey had multiple occasions where he moved the goalpost on what a professional is. After attempting dodge the question he eventually was forced to give some kind of an answer.

For basketball he said players that come from professional leagues overseas may not be professionals because some of them play for clubs. He said G League players are professional players, but anyone who plays through the full summer league is not a professional. These were just his opinions and clearly not based on any facts.

For football he had different answers also. He said signing a contract makes someone a pro. Later with a different line of questioning he said that participation in an NFL mini camp does not make someone a pro, but participation in training camp does make them a pro.

The NCAA and SEC attorneys had an even different view of what a professional is saying that anyone who decides to leave college knows that they were making a choice to be a professional and giving up their right to come back to college.

Attempts were made to define a professional as someone who has been paid. Well one player only got paid $190 by the NFL. The highest paid in the case received $25k. So if receiving $25k makes you a professional athlete then there are professional athletes on every team in the SEC. That same player that received $25k said he received 6 figures at Ole Miss last year and could have received 7 figures this year if he would have been allowed to stay in college.

So if the SEC is going to punish a school for playing a former professional athlete then which standard of professional are they going to use? They can't even set a standard.

Hopefully the new 5 for 5 age based rule will solve most of these problems, but ultimately new rules need to be made defining at what point a player exiting for a professional opportunity is no longer eligible for NCAA and that definition can not be given with the current rules.

Maybe Vanderbilt. They had a player in today's case

No sanctions at this time

He is denying a stay if they request a stay

Judge back on bench about to give ruling

quote:

---

under Sankey's definition of 'if you move on, you're gone,' that would have been exhibit A through Z as to how the SEC has selectively enforced these rules

---

Sec attorney made that argument but sankey danced around it. Said mini camp is not pro but training camp is and also said signing a contract makes you pro

Plaintiff rebuttal

This is not about testing the line. The line is not clear between pro and amateur. If the line is so clear then why can't they explain it?

College baseball and softball teams can play exhibitions against pro players. You allow overseas pros to participate in college. G League players are allowed to participate in college. Other examples are given...

These athletes did not make millions. None of them made any real money. One of them got 20k and some of them received a few hundred dollars.

Judge interrupted and said if they voluntarily left and were ultimately cut they knew that this was a possibility of their actions

Attorney says well it's an argument of old rules vs new rules. Under the old rules players were given red shirts and more years but to make it easier let's look at the new rule.

An individuals eligibility gives them 5 years from enrollment or 5 years from their 19th birthday. All of these players are less than 5 years from their 19th birthday. They made these rules and wrote these rules and under their rules these players should be eligible


No other rebuttal. Matter has been submitted to the judge. He will come back with ruling

Says Clayton jefferies is so fun to watch because he tries to create every advantage, but this is an advantage that we can't allow. We can't allow certain schools to accept former pros when other schools can't. We can't allow schools to scout training camps and recruit guys as soon as they're cut. That's not a fair advantage for all 16 members of the conference