Trending
Anybody who has ever attended college has sat through at least one class where they wonder, "Why am I even required to take this?"
Personally, it was a 6 p.m. social media class. As the sun set twice a week, the thought broke through the drowsiness, "Why am I, a journalism student in their early 20's, being taught how to use Twitter and Instagram?"
The answer is pretty simple. The college or university dictates the curriculum and you elected to get a degree from that particular school. And good luck trying to take that school to court for educational malpractice, because the courts don't take those cases unless there was some sort of crime or neglect involved.
The same cannot be said, however, for college athletics. This goes double for college football.
Throughout the offseason, the definition of "eligibility" has been brought to the court. The NCAA has been on the losing end of each of these cases.
And a new ruling emerged on Friday
Earlier in the month, college athletics reworked the rules to create a five-year limit for athletes. So five years, that all an athlete gets to play in college.
On Tuesday, the Big Ten and Southeastern Conference, the two most powerful leagues in college athletics, instituted a rule barring players who had signed professional contracts from returning to their football teams for this upcoming season.
But it didn't last long, as Dallas County Judge Martin Hoffman put that plan on hold after a ruling Friday.
Maybe the brain is fried after putting together high school football previews for the last month, but this seems backward, right? A student can't take a university to court for wasting their time and money, but a football player can go to court get back onto the field?
The most mindbogglingly example was tight end Dae'Quan Wright.
Wright played for Mississippi last season. After his college eligibility expired under the old rule, he signed as an undrafted free agent with the Philadelphia Eagles and was later claimed off waivers by the Cleveland Browns.
The first round of lawsuits went through, granting him a fifth year. So he wanted to go back to college football and entered the transfer portal. When the definition of eligibility was brought up again, he returned to the Browns -- in the middle of a lightning delay, not even to start the game -- and suited up for the NFL team during their second preseason game against the Buffalo Bills last Saturday.
When he was waived by the Browns this week, he agreed to play for LSU this fall.
Some players are citing that the inability to go back to college football will hurt their future earnings. If there is a Name, Image and Likeness deal, then that is money being left on the table. But it's not like these players are top-100 draft picks.
Wright couldn't cut it with the Eagles, so they waived him. He couldn't make a depleted Browns tight end room, so they waived him. But going back to college for one more season is magically going to increase interest in him as a prospect next spring and he'll sign a deal for generational wealth?
This is even more confounding when you think about whether their contact are legally binding. A player signed a deal with an NFL team, but if that player had guaranteed money in their deal, and most do, then are teams required to pay that out if a player went back to college? Or better yet, is that technically within NCAA guidelines since that's a payment not made through NIL?
Unlike with other college athletics cases in the past, the barring of players with NFL contracts did not come from the NCAA. They were issued after conversations between Big Ten and SEC institutions.
How is that any different from a curriculum established by a university? The school made the rules, and it's up to the students, in this case student-athletes, to follow them.
Those universities made a decision and put rules into place that they wanted to abide by, but judges -- judges in states in which the players want to play in, by the way -- have muddied the water.
The whole summer has seen too many court cases. And even if this is the end of this particular issue, the door has been opened to sue if an athlete doesn't get their way.
College athletics needs to stay out of the courtroom in the future. When politicians return to Washington D.C., the chaos might force federal intervention.
If nothing else, that should help provide a little clarity in the future.
Dan Hiner is the sports editor at The Vindicator and Tribune Chronicle. You can contact him via email at dhiner@tribtoday.com.