Welcome Masai Troutman

[DRK331]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

6'5 Masai Troutman is entering the transfer portal.

 

[Old Man]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

6'5 Masai Troutman is entering the transfer portal.

I thought the portal, for entering, was closed by now. I saw this for Fatts, too, but thought maybe there was an exception due to the court ruling.

 

[gmuballer14]

Does that mean we have someone jumping them on the depth chart or something?

 

[Jack Strop]

These players may need to hold their horses about charging into an extra year of eligibility. The NCAA is likely to file a motion for a preliminary injunction while the parties litigate the appeal. A normal time-frame for an appeal—months and months—will likely quash any hopes of these players latching on to a new team, at least for this season. Can't fault them for trying. This latest kerfluffle could work out itself it out quickly... or not. We'll see.

 

[hoopsjunkie75]

Does that mean we have someone jumping them on the depth chart or something?

He was a senior last year. He entered the portal as a 5th year. He was not on our roster for this upcoming season.

 

[Pablo]

These players may need to hold their horses about charging into an extra year of eligibility. The NCAA is likely to file a motion for a preliminary injunction while the parties litigate the appeal. A normal time-frame for an appeal—months and months—will likely quash any hopes of these players latching on to a new team, at least for this season. Can't fault them for trying. This latest kerfluffle could work out itself it out quickly... or not. We'll see.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion - https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/co...some-ncaa-rules/ar-AA29jY9C?ocid=BingNewsSerp

"Sweeney first ruled that the NCAA could not prevent athletes who had enrolled in college in 2022 from using a fifth year of eligibility, even if they had already completed four years of eligibility.

According to her latest order, though, players aren’t eligible if they’re over the age of 24 or have signed a professional contract. Sweeney also said they must abide by NCAA transfer rules, and their schools are still subject to the revenue-sharing cap and roster limits set by the House v. NCAA settlement.

The NCAA has already filed its first appeal in an attempt to overturn the ruling altogether. But for now, NCAA chief legal officer Scott Bearby told members how the association views the injunction’s limitations. 'The District Court of Colorado has granted the NCAA’s motion to clarify the injunction and make clear that the House Settlement’s roster limits and benefits cap remain fully in effect,' he wrote in a statement. 'Class members’ eligibility to participate will be determined by application of the age-based eligibility rule—iin other words, they must be within five years of when they first enrolled at any college or turned 19, whichever occurred earlier. All other NCAA eligibility rules, including rules regarding professional participation, remain in effect.'”

 

[Ben Chwarmer]

I respectfully disagree with your opinion - https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/co...some-ncaa-rules/ar-AA29jY9C?ocid=BingNewsSerp

"Sweeney first ruled that the NCAA could not prevent athletes who had enrolled in college in 2022 from using a fifth year of eligibility, even if they had already completed four years of eligibility.

According to her latest order, though, players aren’t eligible if they’re over the age of 24 or have signed a professional contract. Sweeney also said they must abide by NCAA transfer rules, and their schools are still subject to the revenue-sharing cap and roster limits set by the House v. NCAA settlement.

The NCAA has already filed its first appeal in an attempt to overturn the ruling altogether. But for now, NCAA chief legal officer Scott Bearby told members how the association views the injunction’s limitations. 'The District Court of Colorado has granted the NCAA’s motion to clarify the injunction and make clear that the House Settlement’s roster limits and benefits cap remain fully in effect,' he wrote in a statement. 'Class members’ eligibility to participate will be determined by application of the age-based eligibility rule—iin other words, they must be within five years of when they first enrolled at any college or turned 19, whichever occurred earlier. All other NCAA eligibility rules, including rules regarding professional participation, remain in effect.'”

So over the ncaa. Be on the players side just once already. What’s the harm… if the schools don’t want the player anymore they don’t need to sign them.

 

[Jack Strop]

So over the ncaa. Be on the players side just as nce already. What’s the harm… if the schools don’t want the player anymore they don’t need to sign them.

Perhaps.

It's not about the NCAA being nice to the players and granting their every wish. It's about the NCAA's ability to make and enforce rules to govern their body. No rules equals chaos, unfair competitive advantages, and exploitation. If one "rule" falls then others fall—dominoes. Each rule must be upheld, enforced, and defended or the whole system collapses.

To an extent, the NCAA has brought much of this anguish upon themselves. Sometimes through their greed, sometimes through their fecklessness, and sometimes through their incompetence.

Yes, the NCAA could be more conciliatory toward the players' needs and concerns. But that ship has sailed long ago. To be even more trite, the NCAA made (and shat in) their bed and now it's time to sleep in it. They propagated this mess. But, for their lives, they absolutely must vigorously defend what remains. Otherwise, there's no reason for the NCAA to exist.

It didn't have to come to this. It didn't have to be this way. Yet, here we are.

 

[Ben Chwarmer]

Perhaps.

It's not about the NCAA being nice to the players and granting their every wish. It's about the NCAA's ability to make and enforce rules to govern their body. No rules equals chaos, unfair competitive advantages, and exploitation. If one "rule" falls then others fall—dominoes. Each rule must be upheld, enforced, and defended or the whole system collapses.

To an extent, the NCAA has brought much of this anguish upon themselves. Sometimes through their greed, sometimes through their fecklessness, and sometimes through their incompetence.

Yes, the NCAA could be more conciliatory toward the players' needs and concerns. But that ship has sailed long ago. To be even more trite, the NCAA made (and shat in) their bed and now it's time to sleep in it. They propagated this mess. But, for their lives, they absolutely must vigorously defend what remains. Otherwise, there's no reason for the NCAA to exist.

It didn't have to come to this. It didn't have to be this way. Yet, here we are.

Why even pick this battle, though? I’m open to learning how this helps anything other than just showing some level of control.

 

[Jack Strop]

Why even pick this battle, though? I’m open to learning how this helps anything other than just showing some level of control.

For the sake of future litigation. If a particular plaintiff loses cases along a similar line of conflict then more consequential cases will ensure. Lesser detrimental rulings will build unofficial precedent in the lower courts sending the NCAA down a steeper and more slippery slope.

The NCAA must appeal and win these "smaller" cases to establish a line of official precedent from the appellate courts. Of course, the risk is that if the NCAA loses the appeal then the ruling becomes precedent against them. But if the NCAA doesn't appeal then it's open season to sue the NCAA. So, where does it end? One has to cut off the head of the snake while it's small to keep it from growing into a serpent.

 

[Pablo]

With the court's clarification of its initial ruling, it appears to me that the NCAA has already conceded defeat. Basically, the court has taken a prospective rule change and allow the rule change to apply beginning with student-athletes who exhausted their eligibility during 2025-26 under the previous rules - https://www.ncaa.org/eligibility-center/division-i-and-division-ii-age-based-eligibility-rules/

"The transition to the age-based rules will depend on the student-athlete’s status and enrollment timeline.

Group	How eligibility will be reviewed
Student-athletes who used their final season of competition (under previous rules) during 2025-26.	No additional eligibility.
Current student-athletes with eligibility remaining (under previous rules) after the 2025-26 academic year.	Either the previous rules OR the new age-based rule, whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete.
Prospects who initially enroll full time at any college or university during 2026-27.	Either the previous rules OR the new age-based rule, whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete.
Prospects who initially enroll full time at any college or university in fall 2027 or later.	The age-based rule only."

 

[GMUgemini]

Perhaps.

It's not about the NCAA being nice to the players and granting their every wish. It's about the NCAA's ability to make and enforce rules to govern their body. No rules equals chaos, unfair competitive advantages, and exploitation. If one "rule" falls then others fall—dominoes. Each rule must be upheld, enforced, and defended or the whole system collapses.

To an extent, the NCAA has brought much of this anguish upon themselves. Sometimes through their greed, sometimes through their fecklessness, and sometimes through their incompetence.

Yes, the NCAA could be more conciliatory toward the players' needs and concerns. But that ship has sailed long ago. To be even more trite, the NCAA made (and shat in) their bed and now it's time to sleep in it. They propagated this mess. But, for their lives, they absolutely must vigorously defend what remains. Otherwise, there's no reason for the NCAA to exist.

It didn't have to come to this. It didn't have to be this way. Yet, here we are.

Not sure how much is the NCAA’s fault and how much of it has been courts weakening the NCAA over time (starting with Board of Regents vs. NCAA). I suppose the decision to sell rights at all is probably the original sin. If they wanted collegiate athletics to remain amateur they should have given them away for free and just focus on safety rules (which is why the NCAA was formed in the first place).