5 for 5 maybe happening

[Joe Zura]

 

[All Gas No Brakes]

If the NCAA says it’s happening, it’ll be happening. But in about 5 to 7 years.

[Joe Zura]

 

[GetHooked]

7 minutes ago, Joe Zura said:

 

I have to think that NOT retroactive will create a lawsuit or two.

[Beldar]

38 minutes ago, Joe Zura said:

 

Hope so. Needs to happen.

 

[Hank South]

20 minutes ago, GetHooked said:

I have to think that NOT retroactive will create a lawsuit or two.

Agree 

[Gerry Hamilton]

Absolutely it is expected to happen 

Was told late last week that it’s expected … and that 4th year seniors in this class will not be granted an extra year.

I was also told the Texas A&M G-League commit Bryson Warren is not expected to be eligible- but we shall wait on official word. He’s five years removed from HS graduating class already. 

[Joe Zura]

So if this actually happens the amount of lawsuits the NCAA is going to get hit with is going to be wild right?

[HelloThere]

 

1 minute ago, Joe Zura said:

So if this actually happens the amount of lawsuits the NCAA is going to get hit with is going to be wild right?

They are going to get sued no matter what so they need to pass it anyway. If it gets the 28 year old "freshmen" out of college sports then I am all for it. 

[HonkEm]

22 minutes ago, Joe Zura said:

So if this actually happens the amount of lawsuits the NCAA is going to get hit with is going to be wild right?

The part that jumps out to me is Baker saying the age‑based eligibility rule won’t be retroactive. That’s exactly the kind of thing that’s going to trigger lawsuits. You can’t create a new eligibility pathway for future players while telling the guys who already exhausted their years, “Sorry, tough luck.” That’s two different classes of athletes overnight.

And with NIL in the mix now, players can argue real financial harm from being denied another year. That’s a very different legal landscape than the NCAA is used to. They’ve been getting hammered in court for years, and this is another situation where their logic is going to get tested hard.

So yeah - if this rule goes through as “not retroactive,” the amount of legal action coming their way is going to be wild. The NCAA keeps trying to modernize without fully thinking through the consequences, and every time they do that, the courts end up cleaning up the mess.

[Michelle Lynn]

25 minutes ago, HelloThere said:

 

They are going to get sued no matter what so they need to pass it anyway. If it gets the 28 year old "freshmen" out of college sports then I am all for it. 

This would impact Seymore I think… edit: maybe not?? Idk these rules are confusing! 😅

Edited 2 hours ago by Michelle Lynn

[HonkEm]

6 minutes ago, Michelle Lynn said:

This would impact Seymore I think…

I wouldn't think so based on everything Baker said today, this age‑based eligibility rule wouldn’t affect Seymour at all. The “not retroactive” part only applies to older players who already burned through their eligibility and were hoping to come back under the new system. Seymour isn’t in that category - he still has eligibility left and he’s well under the age threshold the NCAA is targeting.

So I would think nothing changes for him coming to Texas this summer. His spot, his timeline, and his eligibility are all the same. The only people who get squeezed by this are the older guys who were hoping for one more year, not incoming transfers like Seymour.

Want to thank Joe for posting this....so interesting.

Edited 1 hour ago by HonkEm

[HalfmileHorn]

Sorry, I thought the thread was "5 on 5" ...

 

[LonghornFan4Ever]

10 minutes ago, HalfmileHorn said:

Sorry, I thought the thread was "5 on 5" ...

 

How does “5 on 5” in Detroit sound 11 months from now?