Pitt's Ishmael Leggett Enters Transfer Portal
PITTSBURGH — Pitt Panthers guard Ishmael Leggett has entered the transfer portal, even with no eligibility remaining. He has played 150 career games over five
www.si.com
Ish to the transfer portal
- Thread starter ratking17
- Start date
This is all past the point of absurdity.
The NCAA is going to allow 5 full seasons of play, so basically no redshirt year. There's a few lawsuits out now and they are going to lose. Ish played 4 + Covid and Covid doesn't count so he and Austin will get an extra year. Not sure on Dunn.
Why would they allow 5? That makes no sense. Covid doesn't count... okay. But if you've played in four others, that should be it.
The only argument I could see in basketball is not counting both the season that ended in 2020 and the one that began in 2020.
In football, people just flat out don't understand the rule. They think having been on a roster in 2020 thrusts you into some Super Mario bonus round where your eligibility multiplies. I've seen so many people fail to grasp the concept that if you redshirted in 2020 but played in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 it's the same exact thing as if you played in 2020 and in those four subsequent seasons. It doesn't give you an extra year; it's just that 2020 doesn't count.
I think that so many of these guys realize that this is the most money they are ever going to make in their lives.
Gotta grab the stacks while they can.
This is also making the pay for play argument.
Gotta grab the stacks while they can.
This is also making the pay for play argument.
Well, football allows 4 1/2 now. You get 4 full PLUS 4 free games in an extra season, 5 including bowl games, 8 including a full CFP run. So why not 5? 5 will be approved. Then, next will be unlimited eligibility. If someone wants to take college classes for 20 years, what right does the NCAA have to deny them the right to get paid to play for the basketball team?
I just don't see any interpretation of the rule where five is the number. It's either four, or you can say the rule is unfair and gets thrown out altogether. Where is there an in between arena where five (barring medical exemptions and things that have always existed) is somehow the new number?
Again, this is budgeting for the fact that the Covid season doesn't count - I get that.
And football has a redshirt game allowance clearly spelled out. Basketball (oddly) doesn't. And I especially don't consider that to be relevant when we're talking about dudes who have played in 30+ games in four non-Covid seasons.
The lawsuit is because the rule is unfair and it's denying people a right to earn a living. And why do they allow you to be on scholarship for 5 years, taking classes but only playing in 4. It's an arbitrary number. Why not 3? Why not 6? They will win.
That's my point. It says 4 right now. 5 is completely arbitrary. It's either what it says now or it's unlimited. How could it be anything else?
I get what you are saying but they are saying you are already giving us 5 but only allowing us to play in 4 or 4.5 of them. So let us play for all 5. And then in the next lawsuit, it will be unlimited and you'll have 41 year old starting quarterbacks.
"Back for his 23rd season with the team, is Bill Stull!"
I don't think he'll be granted eligibility, and any court challenge could drag on a while. That said, yes, we will miss his play, he was one of our best players the last couple years.
i heard Brian Brush is going to the portal. he may get that extra year of eligibility so he's putting his name in.
Please show me where the "right to earn a living" exists on paper.
That's for the judge to decide, not me. The players will win the extra year partly due to this right to earn a living and then the next suit will grant them unlimited eligibility. We could have had 35 year old DeJuan Blair making $1 million/year at Center.
You people on the left think you have a "right to earn a living", like you have a right to healthcare. Show me in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where we have those rights. WE DON'T!
First, the 11th Amendment is not in the Bill of Rights. Only the first 10 are called the Bill of Rights. And it does no reference earning a living.
There is something called the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the 14th Amendment that states “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….” . The courts interpret that variously and some, although incorrectly, view that as the "right" to earn a living. There is no Amendment that specifically states that citizens have the right to earn a living, have healthcare, or anything else the left is pushing.
Some of you need to go back to school and take a course on the Constitution.
I’d like to keep it going but I’ll spare you. His post was total sarcasm. But you’re completely humorless so I can see how you’d miss it.
We need a bruiser like this Sharpsville PA legend.
my sis worked with him at pepsi years and years ago. said he was a nice guy.
I didn't miss it. I don't assume anything when it comes to the level of stupidity of the left.
Nah, you missed it. Total whiff.
@Joe the Panther Fan is left? You’ve lost what’s left of your mind.
And if anything stupid it’s labeling large groups of people as anything you ignorant fool.
I've been called many things before, but I'm not sure I've ever been accused of being a leftist.
First time for everything!
Compared to some of these guys, Joe- you are over here with those capable of independent thinking !!
The players may win, but it won't be due to a "right to earn a living", since it doesn't exist in the real world outside of SMF world.
Some discussion here about this topic: https://www.athleticbusiness.com/op...suits-against-ncaa-for-additional-eligibility
It'd probably be anti trust law, which is the closet thing to that. You can't collude against against a labor market.
Not saying I have any insight to if they will win or not, college athletics definitely isn't a typical "job" in some sense but in others it is.
If college sports is ruled as a regular job, they will have to make it accessible to the disabled. I mean Pitt is probably already in compliance with some of the guys we put out there at QB in recent seasons.
But I look forward to having a guy with no legs playing RB in a motorized wheelchair bowling people over. He could never be ruled as having a knee down.
Well the ADA is based on the concept that an employer has to make "reasonable accommodations." I'd say a motorized running back is entirely reasonable and that CMU will soon dominate robo-football.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Dwindling WPIAL numbers and Pitt recruiting..... (with link)- Latest: pitt90seven
-
-
-
