Jett Elad

[PSAL_Hoops]

we NEVER put RU bias aside. WE ARE RU

Its not so much that the points raised are unreasonable, rather, its the irony that this particular one that involves Rutgers is what the NCAA is choosing to stick its neck out on. North Carolina was quite literally able to get away with formally running a fake class to satisfy the academic requirements for athletes. That didn’t seem to matter at all.

Basically in this case the NCAA is saying rules change. When the sit out transfer rules changed, kids who were subject to it didn’t get that time in their lives back. Money, of course, is the difference that separates this situation from past rule changes because in the US, history says our courts tend to be retroactively sympathetic to changes that very clearly wouldve impacted past financial outcomes (the adoption of FMLA in the workforce might be a somewhat comparable reference point. Not situationally, but in the sense of lawsuit trends and outcomes that followed.)

 

[-RUFAN4LIFE-]

Its not so much that the points raised are unreasonable, rather, its the irony that this particular one that involves Rutgers is what the NCAA is choosing to stick its neck out on. North Carolina was quite literally able to get away with formally running a fake class to satisfy the academic requirements for athletes. That didn’t seem to matter at all.

Basically in this case the NCAA is saying rules change. When the sit out transfer rules changed, kids who were subject to it didn’t get that time in their lives back. Money, of course, is the difference that separates this situation from past rule changes because in the US, history says our courts tend to be retroactively sympathetic to changes that very clearly wouldve impacted past financial outcomes (the adoption of FMLA in the workforce might be a somewhat comparable reference point. Not situationally, but in the sense of lawsuit trends and outcomes that followed.)

The NCAA is challenging multiple cases similar to this one, sorry to break it to you but RU isn't special here.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

The NCAA is challenging multiple cases similar to this one, sorry to break it to you but RU isn't special here.

Did I not just say that? There are a small group of cases where this situation applies. The irony is that this is literally the only issue the NCAA has put up a fight about and, of course, it happens to apply to Rutgers. Nobody was trying to say the NCAA sought out to specifically make Rutgers an example.

The bottom line here is while the NCAA’s objection makes sense within the confined vacuum of their jurisdiction (college sports only), there are much broader implications here that will be considered in court. It used to be that a kid made the Juco decision to use eligibility to continue playing sport while beginning to earn college credits. There were no financial implications to that choice. The reality is, if the NIL world remains as it is for years to come no kid with borderline D1 potential will ever choose that route again. Reclassification schools are popping up in AAU clubs everywhere like candy. Different levels - middle school, high school. No kid is going to proactively give up a year of NIL earning potential. The money is big enough where it constitutes livelihood by definition for most high school kids in the position to make this decision. A year of NIL - say even 150K is at least 3 years of entry level income in the workforce.

The NCAA will try to argue that nobody can know what the path of these players would’ve been if that hadn’t gone to those JUCOs and developed their game there. The point though is that Elad and others in his situation were deprived the opportunity to try to develop in a way that would’ve preserved their ability to earn an extra year of NIL income.

 

[Knight Shift]

Did I not just say that? There are a small group of cases where this situation applies. The irony is that this is literally the only issue the NCAA has put up a fight about and, of course, it happens to apply to Rutgers. Nobody was trying to say the NCAA sought out to specifically make Rutgers an example.

The bottom line here is while the NCAA’s objection makes sense within the confined vacuum of their jurisdiction (college sports only), there are much broader implications here that will be considered in court. It used to be that a kid made the Juco decision to use eligibility to continue playing sport while beginning to earn college credits. There were no financial implications to that choice. The reality is, if the NIL world remains as it is for years to come no kid with borderline D1 potential will ever choose that route again. Reclassification schools are popping up in AAU clubs everywhere like candy. Different levels - middle school, high school. No kid is going to proactively give up a year of NIL earning potential. The money is big enough where it constitutes livelihood by definition for most high school kids in the position to make this decision. A year of NIL - say even 150K is at least 3 years of entry level income in the workforce.

The NCAA will try to argue that nobody can know what the path of these players would’ve been if that hadn’t gone to those JUCOs and developed their game there. The point though is that Elad and others in his situation were deprived the opportunity to try to develop in a way that would’ve preserved their ability to earn an extra year of NIL income.

Not the only issue. There are multiple issues the NCAA is challenging. But this will not stop the woe is me routine of some RU fans.

Here ya go:

The Tracker — The College Sports Litigation Tracker

www.collegesportslitigationtracker.com

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Not the only issue. There are multiple issues the NCAA is challenging. But this will not stop the woe is me routine of some RU fans.

Here ya go:

The Tracker — The College Sports Litigation Tracker

www.collegesportslitigationtracker.com

It’s not a woe is me. Not one person said anything about Rutgers being a direct target. It just seems to me, we’ve had historically bad luck with timing. Somehow we end up with one of very few kids (Brantley) who gets blocked during a time when the NCAA was losing every battle and barely going through the motions. And then when we finally seem to be in a position to benefit from one of these cases the NCAA gets its legs back for fighting. J Will is the only situation I recall that’s worked out in our favor. Again - nothing has been aimed at Rutgers, just seems we don’t have the best of luck with timing is all.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Anyway - as far as I’m concerned, JUCO probably shouldn’t count towards eligibility for anyone unless there’s a legal way to set an age cap on college sports participation. Without an age cap, all this rule does is discourage the pursuit of primary and secondary school academics by encouraging delay of academic progress from a very young age to gain an edge in sports. Enough parents hold their sons back in kindergarten for this reason. Now more and more will pull their kids out of the classroom.to reclassify and attend these BS makeshift “basketball schools”.

 

[RU#1fan]

Anyway - as far as I’m concerned, JUCO probably shouldn’t count towards eligibility for anyone unless there’s a legal way to set an age cap on college sports participation. Without an age cap, all this rule does is discourage the pursuit of primary and secondary school academics by encouraging delay of academic progress from a very young age to gain an edge in sports. Enough parents hold their sons back in kindergarten for this reason. Now more and more will pull their kids out of the classroom.to reclassify and attend these BS makeshift “basketball schools”.

This

 

[Knight Shift]

While not related to football, another decision "designed" to hurt Rutgers :

 

[RU#1fan]

Happens more than you know.

 

[Knight Shift]

Happens more than you know.

Uh oh.

In a court filing, Wingfield stated he stood to make roughly $210,000 to play this season for the Trojans. Robinson’s complaint stated he was offered an NIL contract by UCLA worth $450,000.

“This is another illustration of how inconsistent these rulings have been,” Boise State law professor Sam C. Ehrlich told On3. Judges are very clearly disagreeing with each other on a particular legal issue, whether the rules are commercial, and it’s allowing some players to get an extra year and others not to, despite nearly identical relevant facts. This will be — hopefully — resolved in the next few months at the appellate level, but that won’t help the players who justifiably feel like they’re getting treated unfairly just because they unluckily drew the wrong judge.”

With Monday’s decision, it is unlikely the players will be able to play the 2025 season, Ehrlich said. The players can try to ask the Ninth Circuit for an emergency look, but “that’s a high, high, high bar,” he said.

USC's DJ Wingfield, UCLA's Kaedin Robinson denied preliminary injunctions ahead of 2025 season

The Central District of California denied preliminary injunctions from USC offensive lineman and UCLA wide receiver Kaedin Robinson.

www.on3.com