Jordan gainey 5th yr??

#76
#76
bleedingTNorange said:
I think more people are in college for 5 years than you are realizing
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if they allow this extra year then you have a precedent that would almost guarantee more years will be granted.
Instead of going over seas and to G league guys will just stay in college. Rosters would fill up quick with older players if that happens.
Essentially, you have a new NBA
 
#77
#77
It’s just a matter of time before someone argues that college sports is a career path now and the eligibility rules are preventing them from earning a living. And some idiot libertarian judge will rule in their favor.
 
#79
#79
bleedingTNorange said:
There wasn’t a precedent for Pavia, until there was, now there’s another with less in his favor than Pavia, opens the door for the next suit with even less
Click to expand...
True, but if you look at the case he had a real argument because he didn't have the same chance as other NCAA players to play 4 years at a NCAA school.
 
#81
#81
Anti-shunshinepumper said:
True, but if you look at the case he had a real argument because he didn't have the same chance as other NCAA players to play 4 years in division 1.
Click to expand...
He could’ve not gone JUCO, seems like a choice/chance that he had…but anywho, there’s always gonna be a new precedent or argument, right now it’s overwhelming in favor of 5th year, you’ll literally have thousands of players who aren’t getting a 5th year when thousands before them did, that’s quite a precedent. Not sure you’ll see thousands of players get a 6/7 year to then have a similar argument to make.
 
#82
#82
bleedingTNorange said:
He could’ve not gone JUCO, seems like a choice/chance that he had…but anywho, there’s always gonna be a new precedent or argument, right now it’s overwhelming in favor of 5th year, you’ll literally have thousands of players who aren’t getting a 5th year when thousands before them did, that’s quite a precedent. Not sure you’ll see thousands of players get a 6/7 year to then have a similar argument to make.
Click to expand...
Sometimes JUCO students don't have a choice, tho. That's what made the argument so strong and not that surprising when the decision was made to give them full time/rights of an NCAA 4- year athlete.
 
#83
#83
Anti-shunshinepumper said:
Sometimes JUCO students don't have a choice, tho. That's what made the argument so strong and not that surprising when the decision was made.
Click to expand...
But many times they do have the choice, and also then we can argue was it their choice to not do well enough in school, are we now rewarding that? Also not everyone that goes JUCO was bad in school, some just elected that route over a low D1, so how is that then policed?
 
#84
#84
bleedingTNorange said:
But many times they do have the choice, and also then we can argue was it their choice to not do well enough in school, are we now rewarding that? Also not everyone that goes JUCO was bad in school, some just elected that route over a low D1, so how is that then policed?
Click to expand...
I think more than anything it was more of a case of not punishing youths that grew up in bad areas and therfore weren't as prepared for NCAA standards.
 
#85
#85
Anti-shunshinepumper said:
I think more than anything it was more of a case of not punishing youths that grew up in bad areas and therfore weren't as prepared for NCAA standards.
Click to expand...
So like a kid that goes to college and struggles for a year to adapt away from home and doesn’t play a whole lot but loses a year of eligibility, what’s the difference?
 
#86
#86
bleedingTNorange said:
So like a kid that goes to college and struggles for a year to adapt away from home and doesn’t play a whole lot but loses a year of eligibility, what’s the difference?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're saying?
Doesn’t really matter tho, judge rulled in JUCO 's favor. Obviously they were convinced they were not given as fair of a shake in regards
 
#87
#87
Anti-shunshinepumper said:
I'm not sure what you're saying?
Doesn’t really matter tho, judge rulled in JUCO 's favor. Obviously they were convinced they were not given as fair of a shake in regards
Click to expand...
It was about NIL, not anything else…we can sit back and see, but I’m willing to bet we see a blanket 5th year granted as well.
 
#88
#88
bleedingTNorange said:
It was about NIL, not anything else…we can sit back and see, but I’m willing to bet we see a blanket 5th year granted as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah because of alleged antitrust violations, but IMO that case could have probably been won on the merrits if anyone would have ever really had a reason/desire to bring it.
Even so, in that case and in any future one NCAA has had a long standing rule as far as years of eligibility. I think that is going to be harder to overturn than you might think.

If another year is granted I would be willing to bet you it comes out settlement negotiations and not necessarily from a court ruling.
Like you said, we will sit back and see.
Really nothing more to talk about in regards.. .
 
#89
#89
Derek Reese's jumpshot said:
It’s just a matter of time before someone argues that college sports is a career path now and the eligibility rules are preventing them from earning a living. And some idiot libertarian judge will rule in their favor.
Click to expand...
Probably, I think NCAA tries to make a stand at some point first, tho. They probably know they going the way of the DoDo bird at some point in the future, but I'd say they aren't quite willing to give up power just yet.
 
#90
#90
Anti-shunshinepumper said:
Yeah because of alleged antitrust violations, but IMO that case could have probably been won on the merrits if anyone would have ever really had a reason/desire to bring it.
Even so, in that case and in any future one NCAA has had a long standing rule as far as years of eligibility. I think that is going to be harder to overturn than you might think.

If another year is granted I would be willing to bet you it comes out settlement negotiations and not necessarily from a court ruling.
Like you said, we will sit back and see.
Really nothing more to talk about in regards.. .
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily disagree, and that settlement is upcoming, my point is that each of these cases where a player is given a 5th year and the NCAA loses makes it more likely the NCAA opts to put that into the settlement…that was my point.
 
#91
#91
bleedingTNorange said:
I don’t necessarily disagree, and that settlement is upcoming, my point is that each of these cases where a player is given a 5th year and the NCAA loses makes it more likely the NCAA opts to put that into the settlement…that was my point.
Click to expand...
Again tho, that is all still under the umbrella of the JUCO case. Like I said yesterday, what the players wanting another year need to do is somehow find a judge to give non-JUCO players an injunction. Even if the case is flimsy, then you have a precedent.
Cases like the case earlier in the week in N.C probably only embolden/ give the NCAA more strength in their position in regards. So they could push back in the settlements. To get what they were initially wanting in their settlement, lawyers for the otherside could have to punt on the 5th year for now/time being.
I'm telling you, that is all real possibility.
IMO, more likley even.
 
#92
#92
Anti-shunshinepumper said:
Again tho, that is all still under the umbrella of the JUCO case. Like I said yesterday, what the players wanting another year need to do is somehow find a judge to give non-JUCO players an injunction. Even if the case is flimsy, then you have a precedent.
Cases like the case earlier in the week in N.C probably only embolden/ give the NCAA more strength in their position in regards. So they could push back in the settlements. To get what they were initially wanting in their settlement, lawyers for the otherside could have to punt on the 5th year for now/time being.
I'm telling you, that is all real possibility.
IMO, more likley even.
Click to expand...
There’s been a lot of talk the NCAA wants to be done with the lawsuits, the waivers, the redshirts, the hardships, the JUCOs, the D2s etc etc all presenting different reasonings, they are motivated to just grant a blanket 5th year and stop the headaches for themselves almost as much as the players would like a 5th year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey 77
#93
#93
bleedingTNorange said:
There’s been a lot of talk the NCAA wants to be done with the lawsuits, the waivers, the redshirts, the hardships, the JUCOs, the D2s etc etc all presenting different reasonings, they are motivated to just grant a blanket 5th year and stop the headaches for themselves almost as much as the players would like a 5th year.
Click to expand...
Even if, they aren't just giving it up for nothing.
They will use that as a way to get what they want in these settlements. Like I said, there are bigger fish to fry in these settlements, so it might be a situation where lawyers get more of what they want from the NCAA now and then keep going for the extra playing year(s) in the court system at a later time.

But yeah, we'll just have to see. Mean time we need to hedge our bets. Necessarily counting on Gainey coming back next year would be foolish. If he comes back he should be a cherry on top of our sunday/team and not one of the scoops of ice cream.
 
#95
#95
To my understanding the "5 for 5" hasn't even been proposed in the committee yet.
That could be done in July.
If brought up in July it would then most likely be voted on in January.
Unless somehow it gets advanced a lot after the ruling on rev share I don't see it affecting this years seniors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NighthawkVol and Just a VolinTears
#97
#97
bleedingTNorange said:
This guy has already played in more games than Gainey but is now getting a 7th year…

Click to expand...


Competed 6 years. One was the COVID year that didn’t count. Then he gets 2 medical hardship waivers after playing games in each year? Now gets one more year? NCAA math is more complicated than Euclid’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArdentVol
#98
#98
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Competed 6 years. One was the COVID year that didn’t count. Then he gets 2 medical hardship waivers after playing games in each year? Now gets one more year? NCAA math is more complicated than Euclid’s.
Click to expand...
Had to get a waiver for one of the years since I think you can medical redshirt only once I believe, assume that’s why he needed a waiver. But where’s the common sense, dude has already played more than a full 4 seasons worth of games, they’re effectively giving him a 5th year in other words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArdentVol
#99
#99
bleedingTNorange said:
Had to get a waiver for one of the years since I think you can medical redshirt only once I believe, assume that’s why he needed a waiver. But where’s the common sense, dude has already played more than a full 4 seasons worth of games, they’re effectively giving him a 5th year in other words.
Click to expand...

I think that the old rules might have permitted a second medical waiver year BUT one year would have had to have been zero games played. And the clock wouldn’t have gone beyond five years plus one. The NCAA is rudderless and impotent right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArdentVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top