|
Replies: 31
| visibility 3209
|
Hall of Famer [8184]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 16057
Joined: 2001
|
May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
5
5
Apr 16, 2025, 10:15 AM
|
|
players transfer ability to other schools is ok, but the NCAA can’t according to the courts/lawsuits? Got it.
|
|
|
|
 |
Associate AD [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
2
Apr 16, 2025, 10:20 AM
|
|
It is only a matter of time before someone challenges that rule. I am actually surprised that one has already. However, they will be someone eventually file a lawsuit against that rule & there is one way that even the SEC will be able to win in a court of law. It’s just a matter of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 10:25 AM
|
|
Sorry everyone. My stupid autocorrect on my phone keeps replacing the no with the word one & I didn’t catch it, but think you can tell what I was tying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33548]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 36002
Joined: 2003
|
You're correct.. but proving it will be hard
Apr 16, 2025, 10:35 AM
|
|
The other sec schools could just say they didn't offer because the kid had some sort of issue.. or that the current roster was already good at that position.
Kapernick clearly didn't get a job because of off the field politics.. but he couldn't prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [151]
TigerPulse: 95%
12
|
Re: You're correct.. but proving it will be hard
2
Apr 16, 2025, 10:45 AM
|
|
His main issue was his game was figured out by every DC in the NFL, became predictable and easy to defend. His off field antics were just a desperate attempt to bully his way onto a team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7586]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: You're correct.. but proving it will be hard
1
Apr 16, 2025, 3:08 PM
|
|
He also wanted starting QB pay when his skill level was clearly more suited to being a backup. Being an aggrieved race hustler apparently pays better than being a backup NFL QB these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8293]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7586]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 3:09 PM
[ in reply to Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting ] |
|
Totally agree. All these rules we've considered sacrosanct in the past only exist because nobody has challenged them yet. No way this would hold up in court these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28748]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 12646
Joined: 1998
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 10:22 AM
|
|
esecpn has much better lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5508]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
It's a "gentlemen's" agreement
Apr 16, 2025, 10:33 AM
|
|
The school losing the player puts no restrictions on the transfer but other SEC schools have agreed to not offer them.
That will last until Lane Kiffen or whoever the flavor of the month is at Auburn decide they really need a portal player from an SEC school.
SC and Clemson used to have this agreement. I believe Muschamp was the first to ignore it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18933]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
Or Mott the Hoople @ whineyass Tennessee...but I'd bet on ol' slimy Kiffin***
Apr 16, 2025, 10:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [420]
TigerPulse: 50%
17
|
No it's not
1
Apr 16, 2025, 10:41 AM
[ in reply to It's a "gentlemen's" agreement ] |
|
It's written into the conference By-Laws. They restrict eligibility, not the actual transfer. And I do believe it has withstood legal challenges.
One of the purposes of a conference (any conference) is to establish eligibility. Guys can transfer all they want, they just aren't eligible if they do so within conference during the Spring window. Winter window is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33548]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 36002
Joined: 2003
|
That had not been challenged. No way the SEC
Apr 16, 2025, 10:46 AM
|
|
Could hold that up.. unless it was tried in Mississippi.
If it is tried in Atlanta the SEC will lose for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [420]
TigerPulse: 50%
17
|
Not really
Apr 16, 2025, 11:25 AM
|
|
You may be right that it hasn't been challenged yet (I thought it had but may be wrong on that).
The reason the NCAA rule was overturned is because the NCAA had such a long track record of inconsistency in enforcing the rule and granting waivers.
There is no legal right or claim to eligibility. So long as the SEC remains consistent in enforcing and applying the rule, it will hold up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33548]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 36002
Joined: 2003
|
Wrong .. a lot of things have changed as
Apr 16, 2025, 2:33 PM
|
|
A domino effect from the new transfer rules and nil.
Floidgates is open and any case against an institution being charged with holding back an athlete will be won by the athlete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: No it's not
Apr 16, 2025, 11:23 AM
[ in reply to No it's not ] |
|
That particular bylaw has not been challenged in a court of law & when it does get challenged it not fair well. In today’s climate no way that doesn’t lose in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [420]
TigerPulse: 50%
17
|
Re: No it's not
Apr 16, 2025, 11:31 AM
|
|
Climate has nothing to do with it. The NCAA lost because of their history of not enforcing the rule, and/or being inconsistent in doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: No it's not
Apr 16, 2025, 11:34 AM
|
|
We will have to agree to disagree. I believed there’s is no way it holds up in court & the NCCA ruling will no baring on the ruling one way or another. It’s coming so we will just have to wait & see who’s right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33548]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 36002
Joined: 2003
|
No.. he is just wrong. The schools lose everyone
Apr 16, 2025, 6:23 PM
|
|
Of these now.
Every single one
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5825]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: No it's not
Apr 16, 2025, 11:37 AM
[ in reply to No it's not ] |
|
Can you cite the bylaw with a source/link?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8293]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5825]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: No it's not
Apr 16, 2025, 11:52 AM
|
|
Interesting! Its actually silent on what occurs if they dont transfer right after their sports championship game.
Seems like a rule just ripe to get challenged in court and likely swiftly struck down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: No it's not
Apr 16, 2025, 12:27 PM
|
|
One hundred percent agree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6948]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 13900
Joined: 2000
|
in any other business setting, that is collusion
Apr 16, 2025, 11:51 AM
[ in reply to It's a "gentlemen's" agreement ] |
|
doubt courts look favorably on that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 11:32 AM
|
|
Don’t know if anyone has mention but this only applies to the Spring portal window only. It is fine in the other portal window so if a player desperately wants to go to another SEC school they could wait for the Winter portal window & be immediately eligible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [420]
TigerPulse: 50%
17
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 2:13 PM
|
|
Yes, I mentioned that earlier. The SEC rule also allows for exceptions - such as a coach leaving.
If the rule is enforced equally among not only all student-athletes, but also among all institutions (unlike the NCAA's track record on transfers), it's unlikely to be successfully challenged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5825]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 3:03 PM
|
|
At a high level the rule limits a players movement. Something that has been roundly rejected by the courts at nearly every level.
All it will take a bitter SEC player wanting to head to his (next) "dream school" and poof the rule gets nixed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 3:17 PM
|
|
I think you are spot on. Almost every ruling recently has went in favor of the athletes not the NCCA, conference, or teams. I see this no different the court will rule in favor of the individual player over any conference even the almighty SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 3:20 PM
[ in reply to Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting ] |
|
Couldn’t disagree with you any more. In any other business situation what the SEC conference & its members are doing would be considered collusion. Just don’t believe the courts would look favorably at that regardless of the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2180]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 3:34 PM
|
|
I’m no lawyer, but I would assume the SEC has sound legal footing. They can’t prevent players from transferring out of the conference, but by all means they should be able to limit the number of transfers a player can have within their own conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5825]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 3:45 PM
|
|
OK I am game to understand your line of thinking!
Help me understand how they can limit that? The SEC is just a smaller association within the NCAA.
Limiting movement by the NCAA: BAD
Limiting movement by the SEC: OK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting
Apr 16, 2025, 3:47 PM
[ in reply to Re: May have been discussed. So the SEC limiting ] |
|
Based of what? Just because they don’t want the practice to take place. These players are not employees of these schools they have no right to tell them where they can transfer & be eligible whether in conference or not. Also why is it okay in one portal window but not in another that sounds ripe for challenge. Right now the bylaw for this rule is basically just a gentleman’s agreement among member schools. It only takes one to challenge it & I think the whole thing tumbles down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 3209
|
|
|
50
