So we do the west side improvements for shade for the patrons, but nought for the players? I say we do both, grass and shade. I really do agree if UC Davis can’t grow a healthy turf football field who the hell can?
One question. Do any D1 football teams play on natural turf now?

Would going to natural turf help with the stadium temperature?

7:30 start time possible? I doubt the kids would mind that much.

Why can’t we just schedule night games for august and September? I think we have started to do this. A lot cheaper than some have proposed.

Sorry, I hate Facebook

I don’t use Facebook. Is there any other way to watch the last zoom?

I’m curious where do you get this info? Has UC Davis filed a formal complaint with a court regarding this issue. Was the argument made to a judge or just to the NCAA? Isn’t it highly doubtful the NCAA will back down even with the best of arguments?

Is this kid any relation to the other Jake locker that is rather well known?

We’re their situations very different from the Conners?

I guess the media folks had a brief hiccup today when at around 11:45 they released the “febuary 5, 2026” recruiting class list. Before they quickly realized that they had screwed up and took it down I was able to only read that is is 20 freshman and 10 grad transfers. So no new news there, but still a pretty funny development and apparently no big changes.

But not an official announcement from WSU. Or am I missing something?

Yeah, but if he got the NIL offer that he was happy with and that he accepted it directly from the collective, he did not need his agent to get this done and it would be unethical for the agent to even ask for his percentage (Usually 5-20%). Although some unscrupulous agents have been caught trying to do just that. Hey, I’m just trying to figure out why no announcement. Just a theory. Boring Saturday!

It is possible that CP got the NIL offer directly from the collective which required no negotiations and thus no agent was needed. Which also means the agent was not there to crow about “his client” getting such a “Great deal” on social media or elsewhere. It is certainly not in the best interests of WSU a at this point to advertise the deal was done until as late as they can. I.e after the portal has closed. Just a thought.

JDur, yes the Weills did apparently take their beloved dog, Angel, to the veterinary oncology department at UC Davis to receive chemotherapy for squamous cell cancer. I wonder when that was because I have made the same trip from sonoma to davis many times for essentially the same treatment for our dog Rosie. For such a dismally sad trip for a very sick dog I actually came to look forward to it. Why? The incredibly great facilities and the fresh and optimistic attitude of the residents and vet students (All young women) who took care of Rosie. She survived.. not cured but had a good life, extended only due to the fantastic treatment she received from UC Davis Vet. So I say thank you to the Weill family for your unbelievable support for a great cause.

If there is so much uncertainty why not just put it up for a vote. All those in favor of the Aggies moving up to the FBS level say so with a $1000 donation to the effort. In other words, put your money where your mouth is. Well you all know where this is probably going. I just don’t think it will fly to the tune of the Montana folks at least at this point. Economically the country is not going in the right direction now for a lot of discretionary spending. IMHO . Hope i could be wrong.

Remember when chancellor Hullar tried to change the Aggies name. I forget what he wanted to change it to but I believe it was to the Mustangs. Well, the Cal Aggie Alumni association heard about this and slammed down on Hullar hard. Never heard much about it again. Oh, and I think that the students were polled on this and were firmly against any form of name change.
So if history means anything, no name change coming anytime soon.

Was that the same game where John frost was decked by a sac guy is the back court. Which I saw with my own eyes and was never called a four. I later knew that guy who was an insurance agent in sac.
When I confronted him about this he totally ignored the question. 1967? Or so. Why do some memories never die
?

Fug, it works thru the preliminary injunction process. If the court decides the Conners have a good chance to prevail in the case and would be irreparably damaged if not allowed to play in the 2026 season, then the court could issue an injunction against the NCAA requiring it to allow the Conners to play next season. The actual trial on the merits would come later. Which of course by then be too late to effect the Conners eligibility. Fait accompli, if you will.

As I was driving home today and ruminating about the Conners situation I realized that this case may not be one where a jury trial is allowed. That is, if the court decides this is just about an equitable issue regarding whether the Conners eligibility would be reinstated solely by way of the injunction process, then a jury trial is not allowed. The judge alone would make the ultimate judgement. But that may be not the case here because the Conners could argue that the denial of their NIL benefits for the 2026 season would result in actual monetary damages. Thus, a jury trial would be called for. The reason I add this is that the two parties are now in the mediation process. All these little legal issues are relevant to the actual bigger issue “does the NCAA really want to see this case go to trial” with all the negative publicity, costs and attorneys fess (The California Cartwright Act allows for a prevailing party to get their attorneys fees) that is coming if the Conners prevail? I frankly don’t think they will. But again who the hell knows?

River, the court will have to determine if the NCAA rules that apply to this case are fair and reasonable I.e. why the “scheduled”Mercer game was considered a “non game” for all reasons except for the Conners eligibility. I think this is where the court will have to face and determine if this apparent conundrum in the rules is rational and fair or whether it is not. And considering that this case will be decided in an antitrust litigation environment and with NIL considerations, I think the court comes down in favor of the Conners or at the very least consider it a factual matter that must be decided by a jury. Do you think a jury will buy the “Scheduled game” versus “completed game” distinction? I think the NCAA should be thinking that this is a case that they should settle.