Toggle sidebar

Bama Players Transferring (catch all thread)

  • HELLO AGAIN, Guest! We are back, live! We're still doing some troubleshooting and maintenance to fix a few remaining issues but everything looks stable now (except front page which we're working on over next day or two)

    Thanks for your patience and support! MUCH appreciated! --Brett (BamaNation)

    if you see any problems - please post them in the Troubleshooting board!

bamadwain said:
Thought Jefferson was out of eligibility?
Click to expand...

The NCAA has now granted an extra year to any athlete that spent time in JUCO. Yes, it's all due to the Pavia thing. The AL.com article included players in Alabama it might affect, and Jefferson was one of them. If he wants to come back for another year, he is now eligible.
 
CB4 said:
The NCAA has granted a waiver for JUCO players like Jefferson for 2025-26, giving Jefferson and others like him eligibility for next year. However, the NCAA is appealing the ruling.
Click to expand...

The way the article read to me, (AL.com), is that the NCAA is appealing just the ruling in the Pavia case. The NCAA says they would not block any other athlete that previously spent time in juco and wanted to return next year.
 
Krymsonman said:
The way the article read to me, (AL.com), is that the NCAA is appealing just the ruling in the Pavia case. The NCAA says they would not block any other athlete that previously spent time in juco and wanted to return next year.
Click to expand...
The reason that are giving a blanket wavier for JUCO’s for 2025/26 is due to the Pavia injunction ruling. The NCAA most likely realizes that it will be months before they can get their appeal prepared , get it before a judge to have it heard. In the meantime they will most likely see numerous athletes following Pavia’s decision of seeking relief for an additional year of eligibility for 2025/26, including Jefferson with Alabama.

They are appealing the Pavia ruling in hopes of getting in overturned so they don’t have to deal with it in 2026/27 and beyond.

The granting of the wavier for 2025/26 is primarily due to timing (end of 2024) knowing they can’t get their appeal heard in the next week.

Edit: I believe I saw where the reason Pavia’s attorneys were able to get his request for injunction in front a judge so quickly was “his eligibility would cease the end of this month. And no longer having eligibility would significantly impact his earnings from NIL” The injunction ruling for Pavia (based on what I read) was based NOT whether the NCAA had the legal right to limit eligibility. It was the judge saying “until this is decided, I’m not going to prevent the plaintiff from earning NIL income” . The NCAA will appeal, then I’m sure we’ll see full blown lawsuit(s) to decide in the NCAA has a legal right to limit a student athlete’s eligibility.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: Krymsonman and UAH
How depressing, a thousand posts on this thread. There is no governance or leadership in college football, this is what we have along with out of control NIL. These are college kids running amouk because the adults have lost their minds. How can we instill some sanity into this process? I'm not sure how but it needs to be done.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH
CB4 said:
The reason that are giving a blanket wavier for JUCO’s for 2025/26 is due to the Pavia injunction ruling. The NCAA most likely realizes that it will be months before they can get their appeal prepared , get it before a judge to have it heard. In the meantime they will most likely see numerous athletes following Pavia’s decision of seeking relief for an additional year of eligibility for 2025/26, including Jefferson with Alabama.

They are appealing the Pavia ruling in hopes of getting in overturned so they don’t have to deal with it in 2026/27 and beyond.

The granting of the wavier for 2025/26 is primarily due to timing (end of 2024) knowing they can’t get their appeal heard in the next week.

Edit: I believe I saw where the reason Pavia’s attorneys were able to get his request for injunction in front a judge so quickly was “his eligibility would cease the end of this month. And no longer having eligibility would significantly impact his earnings from NIL” The injunction ruling for Pavia (based on what I read) was based NOT whether the NCAA had the legal right to limit eligibility. It was the judge saying “until this is decided, I’m not going to prevent the plaintiff from earning NIL income” . The NCAA will appeal, then I’m sure we’ll see full blown lawsuit(s) to decide in the NCAA has a legal right to limit a student athlete’s eligibility.
Click to expand...

So NIL is tied to eligibility? Nzaa doesn't control NIL deals, the collectives do...🤔
 
NoNC4Tubs said:
Yes, but it does not eliminate it...😎
Click to expand...
And your point? Go read the judge’s decision for yourself.

Campbell endorsed Pavia's argument that the NCAA's rule, which counts a player's time in junior college toward his overall years of NCAA eligibility, violated antitrust laws and unfairly limited his ability to profit from his name, image and likeness.



 
Last edited:
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH
CB4 said:
And your point? Go read the judge’s decision for yourself.

Campbell endorsed Pavia's argument that the NCAA's rule, which counts a player's time in junior college toward his overall years of NCAA eligibility, violated antitrust laws and unfairly limited his ability to profit from his name, image and likeness.
Click to expand...

I don't have time to read that gobbledygook. :rolleyes:

As I understand it from a previous comment above, this measure was to basically anchor his standing as "eligible" before the deadline.

Hadn't read it, but there is absolute no way that the nzaa can take away his NIL. It is the collective that he should be taking this issue up with as his name still has "value", whatever that is...:cool:

I would guess that the nzaa attorneys will point that out. We shall see.

Of course, I am using common sense here and that has proven to be futile with all the changes recently. 😑
 
Last edited:
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: teamplayer
NoNC4Tubs said:
I don't have time to read that gobbledygook. :rolleyes:

As I understand it from a previous comment above, this measure was to basically anchor his standing as eligible before the deadline.

Hadn't read it, but there is absolute no way that the nzaa can take away his NIL. It is the collective that he should be taking this issue up with as his name still has "value", whatever that is...:cool:

I would guess that the nzzaa attorneys will point that out. We shall see.

Of course, I am using commen sense here and that has proven to be futile with all the changes recently. 😑
Click to expand...

And I certainly don’t have time to explain it to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gtgilbert
colbysullivan said:
Haynes to Michigan. I hope all the LANK crap was worth it.
Click to expand...

Well now that he’s officially gone I can say I’m glad.

He was a part of the Lank crap and never played like a 4 star much less a 5 star.

Effort was spotty.

If he wanted the ball on RPOs then maybe don’t be a part of a collective keeping Ty Simpson on the bench.

Have fun freezing your butt off in Michigan.
 
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: colbysullivan, CrimsonRuss, CrimsonTitles and 3 others
In reference to the Vandy QB…NIL wasn’t”legal” when he was in JuCo…how can he be limited to something that didn’t exist? …and you can’t say it took away his time now when it is legal because he wasn’t waiting a couple years to play hoping NIL became a thing…
Am I misunderstanding the whole thing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rolltide7854 and Islander
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back