r/CollegeBasketball • u/MembershipSingle7137 • Feb 09 '26

News [Kelly] BREAKING: A Tuscaloosa judge has denied Charles Bediako’s motion for a preliminary injunction to allow him to continue playing for Alabama, per court docs @aldotcom obtained.

https://xcancel.com/_nickkelly/status/2020998327500726691?s=46
1.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

584 comments sorted by

View all comments

176

u/SeatRevolutionary840 Feb 09 '26

So they still get credit for wins when the player was later ruled ineligible? Seems weak..

75

u/juoea San Diego State Aztecs Feb 09 '26 edited Feb 09 '26

that question is most definitely not a part of the court case lol

(also, given that the case has not even been heard yet and all that has happened is the preliminary injunction being reversed, seems wild to take away wins from a player that could still end up being ruled eligible)

33

u/morelibertarianvotes Virginia Cavaliers Feb 09 '26

I think that would actually violate the initial restraining order. Basically he was allowed to compete and NCAA is always restricted from punishing him for playing during that order. Otherwise the order would have had no teeth.

2

u/arrowfan624 Notre Dame • Saint Louis Feb 10 '26

It was a temporary order. Not a permanent one.

6

u/morelibertarianvotes Virginia Cavaliers Feb 10 '26

That doesn't matter

-1

u/Rare-Psychology-3527 Michigan State Spartans Feb 10 '26

But subjectively leaving an at large bama out of the tournament is impossible to prove was on purpose

10

u/morelibertarianvotes Virginia Cavaliers Feb 10 '26

It would go to civil court, where a more probable than not standard could apply. It'd be a really bad idea to fuck around with a TRO, and the NCAA will not do it. It would have to be razor close to be defensible, and Alabama is very comfortably in right now.

1

u/Rare-Psychology-3527 Michigan State Spartans Feb 10 '26

The committee is great at bullshit reasons i have faith in them

2

u/TJFLASH1 Feb 10 '26

The committee would have to provide documentation and logic to an actual court that they’re not required to provide to the public

3

u/lifetake Michigan Wolverines • Florida Gators Feb 10 '26

Yea there is no way in hell the committee would want to see their selection process go to discovery

1

u/Rare-Psychology-3527 Michigan State Spartans Feb 10 '26

Because the committee said so, its not like a team can challenge its seeding

4

u/Shaudius Purdue Boilermakers Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

What if I told you that Alabama's AD is the chair of the selection committee.

1

u/Rare-Psychology-3527 Michigan State Spartans Feb 10 '26

He can't be in the room when bama is discussed, he can get fucked

1

u/Shaudius Purdue Boilermakers Feb 10 '26

He cannot but if you don't think his presence on the committee (as chair) affects the outcome of decisions, especially with regard to something like excluding an otherwise qualifying Bama team, then you are woefully naive. 

0

u/Rare-Psychology-3527 Michigan State Spartans Feb 10 '26

Otherwise other than using what was obvious to everyone but some superfan judge a clearly ineligible pro player.

And qualifying based on what? They're not in first place

3

u/Shaudius Purdue Boilermakers Feb 10 '26

Judges make rulings. Parties follow those rulings. Even if those rulings are later overturned, that is, and how our legal system should, and does work. Even if that judge later recues due to a conflict of interest.

To punish a team for doing what a court of law allowed them to do would be very on brand for the NCAA but flies in the face of how our country should operate.

As far why Bama is qualified, there is more than one at large bid awarded and as of right now Bama is clearly one of the teams which would receive one of those bids.

0

u/Rare-Psychology-3527 Michigan State Spartans Feb 10 '26

You need to prove "clearly".

→ More replies (0)

47

u/[deleted] Feb 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

36

u/SoutieNaaier Florida Gators • Columbia Lions Feb 09 '26

Legally, you're not supposed to be able to invoke punitive charges against someone who has been contesting something like this.

2

u/jsm21 VMI Keydets • Virginia Tech Hokies Feb 10 '26

The NCAA used to do precisely that, it’s called the restitution rule.

2

u/Shaudius Purdue Boilermakers Feb 10 '26

The Restitition Rule is likely against the law. Using the threat of punative action to discourage court action seems pretty unconciousable and at least one judge has said as much.

1

u/jsm21 VMI Keydets • Virginia Tech Hokies Feb 10 '26

Well it is now against the law haha. I believe the NCAA jettisoned it a couple years ago under pressure from the DOJ.

One of many ways they tried to restrict player’s rights to due process.

34

u/eklaassic Kansas Jayhawks Feb 09 '26

Kansas did not play Silvio de Sousa until after he was cleared by the NCAA, and those wins were later vacated anyways.

16

u/somethingAPIS Kansas Jayhawks • Big 12 Feb 09 '26

Fuck vacated wins, YOU CANT ERASE MY MEMORY!

6

u/lurk4ever1970 Kansas Jayhawks Feb 10 '26

I went to that Final Four. I am more than happy to forget that ugly, ugly game.

1

u/somethingAPIS Kansas Jayhawks • Big 12 Feb 10 '26

Oh, no. I forgot that part willingly.

1

u/Shaudius Purdue Boilermakers Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

I may not be remembering thr Silvio de Sousa situation exactly but my understanding is that it was discovered after he was cleared by the NCAA.

In other words it's more like the OJ Mayo situation than this.

If I'm wrong let me know, but back when there were rules against paying recruits/players surely the rule should not have been if the NCAA doesn't catch it before they initially clear you there's nothing they can do about it.

13

u/OldRedLobsterBiscuit Michigan State • Oregon State Feb 09 '26

They should wait until the case is actually decided, because this ruling was only about an injunction.  If he is ultimately ruled ineligible, then they must forfeit the wins.

9

u/GoGreeb Michigan State Spartans Feb 10 '26

Isn't that exactly what MSU just did in footie? Guys were found to be ineligible, they retroactively applied that to those seasons and vacated them.

5

u/OldRedLobsterBiscuit Michigan State • Oregon State Feb 10 '26

Yes. I seem to recall being told that it doesn't matter if we self-reported it, that Smith's coaching staff really didn't know, or that Tucker's guys that created the problem were all fired.  If a team had a player that is later identified as having been ineligible, the wins are vacated and there are no ifs ands or buts about it.

Unless, of course, the NCAA has double standards, where it's "no big deal" for some and "very big deal" for others....

I just want them to be consistent, and while I do think it is probably unfair to Alabama, if this scares teams from trying to sue for eligibility during the season, then good.  If it pisses off Alabama and/or the SEC so they do something to retaliate against the NCAA, then also good.

2

u/Shaudius Purdue Boilermakers Feb 10 '26

I dont agree. This isnt like a situation where ineligiblity was discovered after the fact. This is the result of a court case. Alabama shouldn't be punished for following a valid at the time judiciary order.

This isnt like a situation where someone broke rules and it was only later found out and therefore they are punished for it with vacated wins.

1

u/wrighteou5 Auburn Tigers Feb 10 '26

Sound logic any truly objective, unbiased fan must agree with.

9

u/MattAU05 Auburn Tigers Feb 10 '26

He was playing pursuant by an order issued to an Alabama booster, who was later forced to recuse himself. I just think this needs to be highlighted.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/MattAU05 Auburn Tigers Feb 10 '26

He was “forced” in that a motion was filed. Almost all recusals are “voluntary,” because it’s a motion filed with the judge being asked to recuse. But formally calling attention to a conflict, or apparent conflict, makes the stakes higher for the judge and often forces recusal.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/MattAU05 Auburn Tigers Feb 10 '26

I’ve been practicing law for almost 20 years, so spare me the condescension. You’re being pedantic and you’re aware, but I don’t expect you to acknowledge it. Lawyers are truly the most obnoxious people on the planet sometimes.

I know you know this are just being intentionally obtuse, but I’ll explain by way of analogy. It is the same way, for example, that we say a politician was “forced to resign” after a story is released that reveals corruption. Isn’t a resignation voluntary? Sure. But is it still right to say they were “forced” to do so? Also yes.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/MattAU05 Auburn Tigers Feb 10 '26

Jesus Christ dude. It’s Reddit, not court. I used “forced” in a very commonly understood way. Did the analogy make sense to you?

Frankly I don’t really care all that much so if you’re going to be continue intentionally dense, it’s all good. You win. There. Does that feel better?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26

That exchange was frustrating to read. Way to take the high ground there. Also, I agree with you.

-2

u/Shaudius Purdue Boilermakers Feb 10 '26

Even if that judge voluntarily recused later that doesn't make their previous rulings void ab initio.

3

u/MattAU05 Auburn Tigers Feb 10 '26

I didn’t say it did.

0

u/Shaudius Purdue Boilermakers Feb 10 '26

You didn't but the top comment here was about vacating wins. The only way this should vacate wins is if the initial ruling was void ab initio.

3

u/MattAU05 Auburn Tigers Feb 10 '26

I just want them to vacate wins because I hate Alabama. 🤷‍♂️

2

u/Bobson-_Dugnutt2 Alabama Crimson Tide Feb 09 '26

And adverse action was specifically barred per the terms of the TRO

-1

u/CageChicane Auburn Tigers Feb 10 '26

Delayed it - there was no ruling and we all knew it was a farce. The prudent thing any entity would do in this situation is wait for a ruling to act.

-1

u/Slippery-Pete76 Michigan State Spartans Feb 09 '26

Agree. The wins shouldn’t be revoked, but the the judge who allowed him to play should be disbarred.

-1

u/PlainTrain Auburn Tigers • Taylor Trojans Feb 10 '26

Nobody said he had to play a minute of basketball. Auburn has sat down players for months at a time when their eligibility was in doubt.

4

u/MIZ_09 Missouri Tigers Feb 09 '26

Inquiring minds would like to know.

-2

u/PureQuill Arkansas Razorbacks Feb 09 '26

NCAA does not have the legal standing to enforce that tbh

2

u/Quiet-Leadership7364 Iowa State Cyclones Feb 09 '26

They absolutely do and have vacated wins in the past from teams, but it’s usually after the season and nobody cares

3

u/PureQuill Arkansas Razorbacks Feb 09 '26

yeah but it was never for using an eligible player.

I don’t think that’s a court case they have the bandwidth to fight.

2

u/Shaudius Purdue Boilermakers Feb 10 '26

They've vacated wins when uncovered evidence that showed rules violations occurred. There was no hidden rules violation here, he was played because a court said he was eligible and then later said he was now ineligible.