Rainouts are relatively common in baseball for example. The NCAA made the intentional change to the language “scheduled games” so that there wasn’t uncerainty about whether an athlete would qualify for a hardship pending completion of all games. Otherwise a rainout or two late in the season could preclude getting a hardship waiver.(by changing the denominator for the 30% calculation)

Is Rex ready for the NFL combine now if his waiver is denied?

My guess is he wants a full year stats and 100% recuperation.

“ My guess is he wants a full year stats and 100% recuperation.”

Totally agree.

One thing Rex doesn’t need is more stats. His pro prospects really depend on the 40 time. There are a few 4.6 safeties in the league but not many (Rapp, Hufanga).

Jerry Rice ran a 4.7 and Anquan Boldin 4.75.

Game speed is much more important than a random number from a random day and it’s obvious Rex plays at a very high speed

https://youtu.be/406Q1arWjm4?si=GlS1Jc9cXBAlQICb

Teddye Buchanan's numbers improved but weren't eye dropping, and he quickly became a starting LB for the Ravens. As "a fourth-round pick, leading the team in tackles and showing great instincts in both run support and pass coverage". (93 tackles in 14 games)

Buchanan met all the athleticism measurables, was productive his whole career, had 114 tackles at Cal. What he was deprecated on were subjective evaluations by so called draft experts, who embarrassed themselves.

One of the more misinformed 40 times. He consistently ran a 4.55 to 4.6 range and had breakaway speed.

lol, sure let’s use two of the biggest outliers in history. Safeties that run 4.6 or slower are the exception not the rule. Teddye ran 4.6 at 235 pounds which is pretty average for an off ball LB.

My limited research so far in 2026 has not been overly positive in terms of players suing the NCAA for additional year eligibility issues, in fact all of the courts so far have denied additional eligibility. But they were not (to my knowledge) because of a medical disability. One case which does stand out, however, is Trinidad Chambliss v. NCAA which is a medical eligibility case. Filed in Mississippi Chancery Court this year the case alleges that Trinidad who first played at Ferris state in 2022 suffered from acute tonsillitis that year and could not play due to medical conditions. He then transferred to Ole Miss and became the star quarterback. The NCAA has denied his eligibility for the 2026 season. He is projected to be a 6th round NFL pick, but alleges that if he is not allowed another season at Ole Miss he will suffer serious financial hardship because he could otherwise move up in the draft. Fairly new case. I believe the Conners case may be a bit more factually compelling but who the hell knows at this point?

L The Trinidad case is whether in 2022 he had a season ending injury. They don’t have much contemporaneous documentation about the illness or injury. But they can argue that the illness meets the rule requirement.
On the other hand, the Connors case doesn’t meet the conditions for a hardship because the rule says “scheduled games” not completed games, The Mercer game was a scheduled game. The NCAA has defined what a scheduled game is and a scheduled game does not need to be completed to count as such. They need the court to find the rule unfair and void it, not just decide whether someone suffered a season ending injury. I imagine thats a bigger challenge.

Rex has a nose for the ball. I think that makes up for any 40 speed”deficit” assuming your stated 4.6 is his speed - (I am not on the know about an acceptable safety speed on the NFL.). The bigger issue at this point is full recovery from his injury as far as his pro prospects.

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.

The rule applies to all sports, including sports prone to rainouts. The rationality as detailed back in the early 2000s is that if they didn’t count games that were not completed, it would mean the total number of games would not be known until the end of the season. Therefor the number of games a player could participate in would also be unknown until the season ended. A late season rainout could be unfair and cost an athlete a hardship waiver. My point is that the rule is not arbitrary and seeks a balance of fairness. Whatever the rule is someone is going to be on the wrong side of it.

I have to wonder whether or not there is more lenience with a sport (football in this case) that has much fewer events per season than other sports and is much more prone to season-ending impact injuries. Baseball and basketball play more games in any given season, therefore, the odds of eligibility debates due to injury depending on a single game is much less likely by the time season ends. All that to say, the more events in a season, the more likely injury eligibility is clear cut and doesn't hang on the balance of one scheduled game.

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?

I wonder fast this can actually get though the legal system. After a certain point, to prevail may be little more than a Pyrrhic victory.

Rex is a great player. The NFL and the draft process specifically is a different beast.

The thread that wouldn't 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.