Weaver is fine since he got a state injunction in Tennessee
2 Likes
I wouldnât assume that to be true. Would you jeopardize the season by playing a guy whose eligibility relied solely on a local Tennessee court ruling? Whatâs his connection to the state of Tennessee? What happens when/if the NCAA has this case removed to federal court?
2 Likes
I highly doubt the NCAA could retroactively enforce rules after the season has begun. They couldnât make teams forfeit games that had already been played. That would be the biggest joke of all time. They might force guys to sit out later in the season, but it wouldnât affect the games they played in other than future rotation, chemistry, etc
1 Like
They can vacate and have vacated teamsâ wins. Itâs why Louisville doesnât hang a banner for their most recent basketball NC.
Itâs to our benefit that these guys are all ruled ineligible. Weaver makes us better - but not as much better as other teams are gonna be
4 Likes
I agree they can, Iâm saying that would set a horrible precedent. Especially because it would affect many many teams. I donât know the exact number but at least 33% of NCAA teams have players in similar situations as Weaver. Look at Bediako at Bama last year. They didnât have to vacate wins
1 Like
I agree. Other teams are getting multiple players and starters. We are just getting depth. I rather roll the dice with Hadnot getting 20-25 minutes and developing a defender with what we have
It wouldnât be âretroactiveâ - theyâve already made it clear that if these athletes relying on random injunctions for eligibility are ultimately found ineligible, then they arenât going to make an exception. The NCAA maintains that the rule applies and that they are ineligible, so this is consistent. The rule is very clear and doesnât require any subjective evaluation.
Basically, theyâve put everyone âon noticeâ that this is what will happen. Itâs on the coaches and admins to decide if itâs worth the risk.
3 Likes
Iâll trade Weaverâs eligibility for all of these other 2022 eligibility cases right nowâŠ
I love the addition but if we lose Weaver before the season starts weâre still a B12 champion contender but BYU, Tech and Cincy are struggling along with others across the countryâŠ
Edit: I see Wheelerboy basically said the same thingâŠ
6 Likes
Ahh ok, I see. I need to do more research on this. So, basically, play them at your own risk. Until a final ruling comes down, itâs a risk?
doesnt federal overrule any state ruling
2 Likes
Yep. The big thing that people are kind of overlooking is that itâs highly unlikely that local state courts are going to determine whether an NCAA eligibility rule is valid. State courts can make decisions on contractual issues involving the NCAA (like NIL), but even those are ultimately subject to being removed to federal court.
This is why the federal appellate decision is such a big deal. It signals that all of these cases are in legal jeopardy. Plus, we already had a state appellate court in Ohio make the same ruling. These rulings require multiple judges to reach an agreement on the decision, so that is a more reliable predictor of what will happen at trial.
No guarantees, but this whole game of filing lawsuits all across the country was never about winning at trial - it was all about getting injunctions and playing ârun out the clockâ game.
3 Likes
So wait, I didnât realize Weaver was caught up in this eligibility mess.
Is he in our team this season or no?
on the team, already signed⊠eligibity will be decided by the final court ruling which currently in flux
my guess on how it all plays out:
the 5th years will get eligibility, the ncaa is essentially punishing the current 5th years for being in the wrong class⊠as 5 for 5 is active next year
too many teams are already locked into 5th years⊠too many enemies would be made if the ncaa was succesful
I thought Weaver was going to âsignificantlyâ improve our chances at a NCâŠ?
Now yâall rather him not be eligible? 
2 Likes
Our resident expert said he came here to learn to coach
2 Likes
I donât agree with this at all. They have the same rules they had when they came to school and when they finished last season. The rule had to draw the line somewhere, and giving these guys another year will hurt incoming players, which is why they made that distinction.
They arenât being âpunishedâ by not getting what they already didnât have.
The rule is objectively fair and it will ultimately be upheld. Whether the injunction party undermines that is another question.
3 Likes
You can argue it either way imo. I would have allowed them the extra year like the others.
1 Like
But they didnât, and thatâs the rule that considered more than the feelings of this class.
1 Like