Alabama Basketball Implications for College Baseball

1,610 Views | 9 Replies | Last: 28 days ago by TXAggie2011
Detective Jake Peralta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:09p, 1/21/26
AG
If you don't follow college basketball, or haven't heard, Alabama just added Charles Bediako to their active roster following a judge granting a temporary restraining order on his eligibility case. After starting all 37 games for a Tide team that won the SEC in 2022-23, Bediako declared for the NBA draft, went undrafted, and has since signed a two-way contract with the Spurs and played on multiple G League teams.



In the crazy world of college sports today, it's only a matter of time before someone tries this with baseball, right? For context, this would be like us trying to add Braden Montgomery or Chris Cortez to our active roster for this season - players that have been drafted, signed an MLB contract, but only appeared in the minor leagues and have not had their five year eligibility clock run out.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Aggie1205
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:16p, 1/21/26
AG
Maybe we finally get Kershaw and Beckett to pitch for us? Should have all of their college years left right? Maybe Grayson Rodriguez?

Heck we should offer Bartolo Colon an NIL deal.
Reply Quote
6
ensign_beedrill
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie1205 • 3:18p, 1/21/26
AG
Clayton Kershaw finally an Aggie! Yes!
Reply Quote
8
StinkyPinky
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Detective Jake Peralta • 3:18p, 1/21/26
AG
Detective Jake Peralta said:
If you don't follow college basketball, or haven't heard, Alabama just added Charles Bediako to their active roster following a judge granting a temporary restraining order on his eligibility case. After starting all 37 games for a Tide team that won the SEC in 2022-23, Bediako declared for the NBA draft, went undrafted, and has since signed a two-way contract with the Spurs and played on multiple G League teams.



In the crazy world of college sports today, it's only a matter of time before someone tries this with baseball, right? For context, this would be like us trying to add Braden Montgomery or Chris Cortez to our active roster for this season - players that have been drafted, signed an MLB contract, but only appeared in the minor leagues and have not had their five year eligibility clock run out.
Throw in Asch and call it a say
Reply Quote
3
Detective Jake Peralta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to StinkyPinky • 3:26p, 1/21/26
AG
I almost added Asch but his five year clock is definitely out.
Reply Quote
91AggieLawyer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:58p, 1/21/26
AG
I don't think this injunction will survive this week. It is from a STATE judge in Alabama located in or around Tuscaloosa (no bias there). It is questionable what exact jurisdiction this judge has to rule in this matter as the NCAA can easily argue the State of Alabama doesn't exercise personal jurisdiction over them. Most states have what they call "minimum contacts" tests for that analysis and while I won't get into that here, I will say for states like Alabama (unlike Texas, California, and obviously Indiana -- where the NCAA is either located or holds multiple events), it is at least an open question. twk can help me out here and on any potential federal question. That doesn't even get in to what's called subject matter jurisdiction and how this judge can rule on the merits of this case in the first place.

Putting all that aside, the NCAA could also say, "hey, play him if you want but any games Alabama uses him in will be forfeited and regardless of that, definitively won't count toward eligibility for the NCAA tournament." I don't think the judge wants to start a battle like that in which the NCAA is sure to prevail. The Alabama Supreme Court isn't going to uphold this nonsense absent an extremely strong legal basis that no one else, in the history of the NCAA, has found compelling.
Reply Quote
6
Renn_dls
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Detective Jake Peralta • 9:41a, 1/22/26
AG
He would still get another year due to the Diego Pavia ruling. It's only unfortunate that the ruling came out after he played a game in the minors. But it's the same reason Travis Chestnut was allowed to return
Reply Quote
Detective Jake Peralta
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Renn_dls • 9:45a, 1/22/26
AG
Didn't think about that...

Add him in! And Jace while we're at it!
Reply Quote
2
twk
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 91AggieLawyer • 10:45a, 1/22/26
AG
91AggieLawyer said:
I don't think this injunction will survive this week. It is from a STATE judge in Alabama located in or around Tuscaloosa (no bias there). It is questionable what exact jurisdiction this judge has to rule in this matter as the NCAA can easily argue the State of Alabama doesn't exercise personal jurisdiction over them. Most states have what they call "minimum contacts" tests for that analysis and while I won't get into that here, I will say for states like Alabama (unlike Texas, California, and obviously Indiana -- where the NCAA is either located or holds multiple events), it is at least an open question. twk can help me out here and on any potential federal question. That doesn't even get in to what's called subject matter jurisdiction and how this judge can rule on the merits of this case in the first place.

Putting all that aside, the NCAA could also say, "hey, play him if you want but any games Alabama uses him in will be forfeited and regardless of that, definitively won't count toward eligibility for the NCAA tournament." I don't think the judge wants to start a battle like that in which the NCAA is sure to prevail. The Alabama Supreme Court isn't going to uphold this nonsense absent an extremely strong legal basis that no one else, in the history of the NCAA, has found compelling.

I don't do any federal work if I can help it (sometimes, it can't be avoided), but I wonder about removal to federal court. Since this was a TRO (presumably granted ex parte), maybe a notice of removal is coming down the pike today or tomorrow, and we'll get a federal judge to clean this mess up? At the very least, once they have a preliminary injunction hearing (which has to be done by January 27, if the papers are right), then they will have an appealable order that they could take to an appellate court for an interlocutory appeal (or so I would think).

ETA: I think this is very much a rogue ruling, and don't expect this judge to get any support when a higher court (or a federal court) looks at the matter.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 91AggieLawyer • 1:45p, 1/22/26
AG
91AggieLawyer said:
I don't think this injunction will survive this week. It is from a STATE judge in Alabama located in or around Tuscaloosa (no bias there). It is questionable what exact jurisdiction this judge has to rule in this matter as the NCAA can easily argue the State of Alabama doesn't exercise personal jurisdiction over them. Most states have what they call "minimum contacts" tests for that analysis and while I won't get into that here, I will say for states like Alabama (unlike Texas, California, and obviously Indiana -- where the NCAA is either located or holds multiple events), it is at least an open question. twk can help me out here and on any potential federal question. That doesn't even get in to what's called subject matter jurisdiction and how this judge can rule on the merits of this case in the first place.

Putting all that aside, the NCAA could also say, "hey, play him if you want but any games Alabama uses him in will be forfeited and regardless of that, definitively won't count toward eligibility for the NCAA tournament." I don't think the judge wants to start a battle like that in which the NCAA is sure to prevail. The Alabama Supreme Court isn't going to uphold this nonsense absent an extremely strong legal basis that no one else, in the history of the NCAA, has found compelling.


Federal district and state courts have found personal jurisdiction over the NCAA under what's called "specific personal jurisdiction" on eligibility ("specific") issues because the NCAA issues comprehensive regulations and rules applicable to athletes/schools in the state. Absent something weird here, I doubt that's a problem for Bediako.

Without seeing the court papers and what the underlying claim is by Bediako, hard to fully evaluate why this was in state court in the first place (and if it makes sense for the NCAA to try to push it to federal court.)
Reply Quote
3 edits
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.